Yahoo Answers is shutting down on May 4th, 2021 (Eastern Time) and beginning April 20th, 2021 (Eastern Time) the Yahoo Answers website will be in read-only mode. There will be no changes to other Yahoo properties or services, or your Yahoo account. You can find more information about the Yahoo Answers shutdown and how to download your data on this help page.

Isn't what Congress is doing Illegal...?

Update:

Ok.... Unconstitutional... You know what I meant... :/

Update 2:

Cut Throat... thanks for posting the roll call vote... my Rep voted Yea... and now off goes the letter... :/

23 Answers

Relevance
  • Favorite Answer

    Those who hold power determine what is legal and what is not.

    They have the power, hence it's legal.

  • 1 decade ago

    First of all, only the House has passed this bill. The Senate has yet to weigh in.

    If it isn't illegal, it skirts it. It seems like a bill of attainder to me. The only provision that might save it is that the bill is directed at anyone who receives a government bailout and so it's not just A. I. G.

    It also seems to me to skirt the ex post facto provision.

    In that respect, what the automobile workers had to accept to keep their jobs also seems to me to be illegal.

    Therein lies the rub. "Hard cases make bad law." I believe that they do. And it is hard to work up sympathy for the people whom Congress's actions are aimed against.

    I suspect the Obama administration (and fat lot I know about it) is not all that eager that the Senate pass this bill, and I note that the Senate is going to take up the matter the week after next--a delay. Government grinds slowly, but there is sometimes a good reason. These matters should not be decided in the heat of passion. Passions are high now. Mine are. I want to--well, never mind.

    So I'd wait a bit. Congress may not pass this unpleasant and probably unconstitutional piece of legislation. I hate it, but those go dda mn ba s tards ought to get their go dda mn money. It isn't really that much of the pie, but it's like paying for candy for a fat boy.

  • KarenL
    Lv 6
    1 decade ago

    Yes, What Congress did last week was illegal to the letter of the law

    Art I § 9 Bill of Attainder and ....

    But has the average American reads or have read the US Constitution? Does the average citizen care about their government more than seeking roads to be plowed in winter and to be allowed to water their lawns in summer?

    Clearly you do not think, that the media (the hallowed 4th Estate) would deconstructed their friend and supporters in Power? How many people actually knows who are their Representatives in Congress or how they voted?

    As an very old Pogo Cartoon noted: We have met the Enemy and it is US.

    I urge all to rent the movie Network and set a time to yell "We are not going to take it anymore."

    Source(s): http://www.usconstitution.net/glossary.html#ATTAIN... Attainder attainder n. The loss of all civil rights by a person sentenced for a serious crime. [< OFr. attaindre, to convict] Source: AHD In the context of the Constitution, a Bill of Attainder is meant to mean a bill that has a negative effect on a single person or group (for example, a fine or term of imprisonment). Originally, a Bill of Attainder sentenced an individual to death, though this detail is no longer required to have an enactment be ruled a Bill of Attainder.
  • 1 decade ago

    I assume you're targeting "ex post facto" laws.

    Under Calder v. Bull, 3 U.S. (3 Dall.) 386, 390 (1798), one of the very first Supreme Court cases, the ex post facto clause only applies to criminal laws, not civil laws.

    The taxing statutes in question are civil laws. The new rules do not turn the bonus recipients into criminals.

    Congress passes tax rules after the fact routinely. There is nothing unconstitutional about it as long as they do it before returns are due. And returns aren't due yet.

    For example, early in 2008 Congress passed new rules that governed the tax credit for hybrid car owners. The new rules applied to 2007. That sort of thing happens all the time.

  • How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
  • Ed H
    Lv 4
    1 decade ago

    I'm not sure if it's illegal, but it is definatly dangerous. They are singling out individuals (job of the judicial branch IMO). A 90 percent tax is unfair in most cases. A slippery slope indeed!

  • 1 decade ago

    It is totally against our constitution. Both Dems And Rep take an oath to uphold our constitution. I guess that oath is not worth a damn thing. They need to all be voted out.

    ** As far as those who say it is not unconstitutional, a former federal judge was just on FOX and he said what they are doing is totally against at least 3 clauses in the constitution. He, in fact, said it is unconstitutional.

  • 1 decade ago

    You referenced an unamended version of the Constitution.

    Your should have followed the link under that piece of text:

    Amendment XVI

    The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several states, and without regard to any census or enumeration.

  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    Except for Ron Paul and very few others they are all traitors. Not only that - but every time I see them puff up on CSPAN they remind me of an Abbott and Costello routine. They are idiots.

  • 1 decade ago

    It most certainly is.

    That means that those individuals who voted for those members of congress who are doing this crap have basically committed crimes against the Constitution thereby making them unAmerican.

    Ok that is a little exaggerated, but the point is that we are responsible for those idiots in Congress and that noncitizen, criminal socialist in the White House. So it is OUR responsibility to make them stop this crap and vote them out of office.

    Call your congressmen and tell them this is illegal and you do not want them to vote for the continued ruination of this great country.

  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    Liberal Dem here. Don't know about legalities but I know my opinion. Congress is being totally ridiculous. We already wrote the check. Too late. You don't put a stop payment on it just because you realize it was a bad purchase. I understand that the government "owns" AIG but if my employer wrote me a check and then turned around and told me I had to give back 90% then I'd have an issue.

    Again...I say...I am a Liberal Dem. I already contacted all of my elected officials who could have a say in this.

    Source(s): Here is how they voted http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2009/roll143.xml
  • ?
    Lv 7
    1 decade ago

    That is a legitimate argument but this Congress doesn't really seem to care much about the Constitution..

Still have questions? Get your answers by asking now.