[Always Right]

There should be so many legal challenges to this law. You can design a law to specifical punish certain people, especially something after the fact.

[Syncro]

I'm sure you meant can't, how true.

I saw this discussed by experts on TV last nite.

Unconstitutional and illegal.

SSDD for democrats.

[flintsilver7]

You’re exactly right and I desperately hope these Marxists get shot down.

[pepsionice]

My feelings are that the Supreme Court judges are quietly sitting and smiling tonight. It’ll even be hard for the liberal judges to just look the other way on this law. Plus you have the idiots who wrote this....naturally have experience from the previous bailout writing....so they are 1-star writters of law at best. The court will carve this up and probably have it tossed out by the end of June.

[Wyatt's Torch]

Bill of Attainder:

"These clauses of the Constitution are not of the broad, general nature of the Due Process Clause, but refer to rather precise legal terms which had a meaning under English law at the time the Constitution was adopted. A bill of attainder was a legislative act that singled out one or more persons and imposed punishment on them, without benefit of trial. Such actions were regarded as odious by the framers of the Constitution because it was the traditional role of a court, judging an individual case, to impose punishment." William H. Rehnquist, The Supreme Court, page 166.

[LostInBayport]

There should be so many legal challenges to this law. You can design a law to specifical punish certain people, especially something after the fact.

The question is, will any of the executives be brave enough to bring such a lawsuit? They will get the "Joe the Plumber" treatment to an infinite degree by the White House and their media harem.

[Recovering_Democrat]

yeah it is called ex post facto and it is SPECIFICALLY prohibited in the Constitution.

Not that the jerks in Congress give a DAMN about that document any more.