What happened today, voting to seize funds from individuals, was unconstitutional?

Actually you hit the nail on the head.

Sure I am against these bonuses and especially against giving money to the foreign banks and there is no outcry about the giving money to the banks.

However, the fact that the congress and president are acting like dictators with mob rule mentality and violating due process of law in the courts is no different than what Putin or Hugo Chavez would do.

These guys are violating constitutional law by not going through the court system.

You are absolutely correct and I wish more people felt the same way. Boy oh boy has this country lost its sense of what is legal vs illegal way on high top.

About halfof the Republicans didand 95% of the Democrats and as noted most Repubican votes came t the end. I really think that with every thing coming out in the open that Tthe Treasury and Federal reserve both knew about this for months. For those saying it is former President Bush's fault two thing only half of the 700Billion bail out was used by him the rest was distributed by President Obama and the current Treasury Secretary was the person who wrote and was in charge of the Federal Reserve in New York who ran both the initial bail out and the first 350 billion or thatportion that went to AIG. He was either asleep at the wheel or had to know about thatsince in Dec AIG was talking to the FedRes (and it would have been theNY office in charge of them) about the bonuses. This is nothing but a they got caught and let some one else take the heat for it and blame AIG and Bush. I do not think the tax rewrite is good and sets a very bad precedence for using the tax code this way. The Senate and House both through over whelming vote passed the Stimulus Bill which said these bonuses wee legal and shuld be paid-who are they kidding with the fake outrage over it.

Yes. It is. It is a sad day for America. The House passed it and now it goes to the Senate which will probably pass it too. You can not pick and choose which Constitutional clauses you will break and which ones you won't. If this does go through, we might as well throw the whole thing out. It not longer applies.

Obama is so concerned about Gitmo detainees Constitutional rights but not that of this company who has a legal private binding contract that the administration agreed to and signed? Penalizing AIG for the Team Obama incompetence is beyond belief.

I'm not sure, but since when did politicians start carrying about the Constitution again? Technically, federal drug bans are unconstitutional. Banning drugs isn't a power specifically relegated to Congress by the Constitution, so imposing federal bans is a violation of the 10th Amendment. This is why Prohibition of alcohol required a constitutional amendment. If we went over our law books with a fine-toothed comb, I guesstimate half of the laws would be found unconstitutional.

They passed the stimulus bill, which allowed for these bonuses. Now they're trying to take back money that was used in accordance with a law that they passed. Can they do nothing right? Are we to believe that no one in government knew about this in advance? Do they really think that the public are that dim?

I SURE PRAY their attorneys sue based on this blatant violation of Consitutional Rights provided that the we are protected from the govt --seizing private income--this sets a precedent for the govt to seize your bank accts if they want to--or raise taxes to 70% if they want to--or take away our freedom to life-liberty--to earn our own money free from govt stealing it...

I think AIG showed bad tatse in the bonuses-and should have suffered by being boycotted and having CONSUMERS DECIDE__and this shold be reversed--GOVT SHOULD NOT be allowd to do this outrageous illegal extortion.

IT"S EXTORTION!! by the feds.

Since when did Democrats in Congress or the White house EVER care about the law.

They just like to write them, not follow them.

Are you talking about the bonuses paid to the guys at AIG?

It would be unconstitutional to target one man for or against, but technically not unconstitutional to target a group.

This will never come to fruition. They will think this is all taken care of and it will just fade into the background as they create the next sensation to make the idiot libs forget.

It's not a fine. It's a tax. No revolution will proceed from this.

I also suspect that the House and Senate versions will get lost in committee and never make it into law.