Is the bonus tax unconstitutional?

[Damocles]

It is raising the income taxes on companies receiving bailout money. Not a specific group, and not an individual. Of course, it only practically effects AIG, because they've been the only company receiving bailout money with the gall to do this.

That is also a specific group, and still an after the fact change. This is unconstitutional and will be found as such.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

This is unconstitutional and will be found as such.

I do believe it is unconstitutional, however, it will be found to pass constitutional muster because we only have one solid justice on the USSC bench with the intellectual integrity to decide so. The other 8 will capitulate to the wishes of congress.

 

[Minister of Truth]

I do believe it is unconstitutional, however, it will be found to pass constitutional muster because we only have one solid justice on the USSC bench with the intellectual integrity to decide so. The other 8 will capitulate to the wishes of congress.

Which one are you referring to?

 

[Epicurus]

If I had to guess I'd say he means Scalia.

 

[Epicurus]

Epic, the constitutional scholar.

It is unconstitutional by a variety of interpretations. You would have to really stretch to find one where it wasn't.

 

[Minister of Truth]

It is unconstitutional by a variety of interpretations. You would have to really stretch to find one where it wasn't.

The Constitution is a Living Document. Its not about what it actually says, but about what we expect it should say circa 2009.

That's the one.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

If I had to guess I'd say he means Scalia.

negative. Thomas is the only one who decides by the constitution. Scalia blew his credibility with the Gonzalez v. Raich decision.

 

[ib1yysguy]

negative. Thomas is the only one who decides by the constitution. Scalia blew his credibility with the Gonzalez v. Raich decision.

Hey STY, are all taxes by the federal government unconstitutional?

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

That is also a specific group,

No more specific than "those making over 250,000" or "married couple". By "group" the law means a specific group of people, like AIG. Not a generic class.

and still an after the fact change.

This is not because of a violation of the law though. Does ex post facto apply to taxation?

This is unconstitutional and will be found as such.

Legal scholar damo strikes again!

 

[ib1yysguy]

I had no idea we had so many constitutional scholars on the board.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

Hey STY, are all taxes by the federal government unconstitutional?

of course not. congress has the power to tax, so long as it meets certain criteria. It cannot be a punishment. It cannot be used to single out select groups of people. It must not be prohibitive. I'm sure there are some others as well.

Congress can make any tax they really want to but it's really a failure of the federal courts refusing to rein in the abuse of congressional power.

 

[Bonestorm]

of course not. congress has the power to tax, so long as it meets certain criteria. It cannot be a punishment. It cannot be used to single out select groups of people. It must not be prohibitive. I'm sure there are some others as well.

Congress can make any tax they really want to but it's really a failure of the federal courts refusing to rein in the abuse of congressional power.

My copy of the Constitution says nothing about these various criteria you have set up here.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

I had no idea we had so many constitutional scholars on the board.

It's not difficult to be thoroughly knowledgable on the constitution. It was written by selected representatives of the people, by the people, for the people. It took a bunch of lawyers, judges, and politicians to really muck it up.

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

It cannot be a punishment.

Why not?

It cannot be used to single out select groups of people.

It cannot be used to single out sepcific groups of people - like corporations, or the NRA, or the church of Scientology. It can indeed single out groups of people.

It must not be prohibitive.

Why not?

 

[SmarterthanYou]

My copy of the Constitution says nothing about these various criteria you have set up here.

and you're not going to find it by looking for the words 'but congress may not tax the following'.

you must understand the basic concept of what the constitution is, what it does, who it affects, and some of the USSC decisions in the early years of our founding to get the big picture on it.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

Why not?

Because the vesting clause provides the power to tax in order to sustain the government and provide for general welfare services, military, etc. punishments are handed down via due process of law and taxation is not one of them.

It cannot be used to single out sepcific groups of people - like corporations, or the NRA, or the church of Scientology. It can indeed single out groups of people.

so a 90% tax on all single white males with brown hair between the ages of 25 and 45 would pass your constitutional muster?

Why not?

If prohibitive taxes were allowed, then all congress would have to do to prohibit an activity, be it a natural right or civil right, is tax it so much that the cost prevents its exercise. That is why a tax cannot be prohibitive.

edited to change:

Actually, read McCulloch v. Maryland (1819) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McCulloch_v._Maryland

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

Because the vesting clause provides the power to tax in order to sustain the government and provide for general welfare services, military, etc. punishments are handed down via due process of law and taxation is not one of them.

so a 90% tax on all single white males with brown hair between the ages of 25 and 45 would pass your constitutional muster?



If prohibitive taxes were allowed, then all congress would have to do to prohibit an activity, be it a natural right or civil right, is tax it so much that the cost prevents its exercise. That is why a tax cannot be prohibitive.

edited to change:

Actually, read McCulloch v. Maryland (1819) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McCulloch_v._Maryland

Alright, I understand your position.

I agree, it is probably unconstitutional.

 

[Damocles]

I had no idea we had so many constitutional scholars on the board.

I had no idea that some people had no opinion on the constitutionality of anything at all because of the non-existent "not a constitutional scholar" clause. The next time I hear you talk about the 1st Amendment, for instance, you can just step back, fold your hands into your lap, and shut up because you must be a "constitutional scholar" in order to have such an opinion. Or "unconstitutional wiretapping"... or any number of things you have piped in on in the past.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

I had no idea that some people had no opinion on the constitutionality of anything at all because of the non-existent "not a constitutional scholar" clause. The next time I hear you talk about the 1st Amendment, for instance, you can just step back, fold your hands into your lap, and shut up because you must be a "constitutional scholar" in order to have such an opinion. Or "unconstitutional wiretapping"... or any number of things you have piped in on in the past.

While ib1yysguy was most likely trying to be sarcastic, i've run across this kind of viewpoint in alot of people because of the sheer ignorance factor. Most people nowadays have been led to believe that the constitution is this immensely complex piece of documentation that requires a law degree and dozens of years on a bench to understand what the constitution means, when nothing could be further from the truth.

Unless ib1yysguy is willing to come right out and say he was being sarcastic, I'm willing to give him benefit of the doubt that he probably holds the viewpoint of the average person.

 

[Epicurus]

I had no idea that some people had no opinion on the constitutionality of anything at all because of the non-existent "not a constitutional scholar" clause. The next time I hear you talk about the 1st Amendment, for instance, you can just step back, fold your hands into your lap, and shut up because you must be a "constitutional scholar" in order to have such an opinion. Or "unconstitutional wiretapping"... or any number of things you have piped in on in the past.

LOL