Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (297200)	3/19/2009 3:28:30 PM
From: KLP	1 Recommendation Respond to of 793955

I sure wouldn't think so...but what do I know. The Dems are Grandstanding to beat the band...Most of them are/were lawyers, and I'm sure that most of them know that not only will this be in the courts for years, but that fighting it will cost much more than the $167 Million dollars they "might" get back. The Dems own this mess. And are trying to dig the hole to cover it up just as fast as they can.

To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (297200)	3/19/2009 3:54:43 PM
From: Alan Smithee	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 793955

Doesn't this amount to a bill of attainder? Will it stand in court? It's more in the nature of an ex post facto law. "An ex post facto law or retroactive law, is a law that retroactively changes the legal consequences of acts committed or the legal status of facts and relationships that existed prior to the enactment of the law." en.wikipedia.org Seems to me changing the legal status (tax status) of payments made under contracts that predated the law's enactment fit the description. I think a good argument could be made it is unconstitutional under Art. I, Sec. 9 of the Constitution. As Robert commented, this is not a good precedent. I think our Congresscritters are out of control and need to be reined in.