Comments on: I cannot believe what is unfolding before my eyes… We the People.

By: Covered (kzhat)

Covered (kzhat) — Sat, 29 Aug 2009 07:29:49 +0000

Donna, you missed the point completely. I absolutely have the nerve to bring the Constitution into this, because the constitution is the FOUNDING of our country.

We have no business getting involved in private companies in the first place, MUCH LESS passing ex-post facto law to accomplish political gain due to our involvement.

I could care less if this was AIG, XYZ, QRS or any other company/agency/person/entity - whatever. It doesn't matter. Ex-post facto law is dangerous, frankly reckless and unconstitutional. In my personal opinion we had NO BUSINESS at all bailing out AIG. If this firm was truly a systemic risk, then fine - we back the debts/liabilities and allow the firm to fail. Nationalized and unwind/close.

In this case, the legislators screwed up. Now they must unwind what they did and handle it accordingly. In my opinion, accordingly is not by violating the constitution of the United States of America.

By: Donna

Donna — Sat, 29 Aug 2009 07:13:00 +0000

To the poster of this nonsensical rant: How dare you. How DARE YOU. You think it 's OK for the tax payers to bail out this stinking albatross for the bonuses to fly, (I thought bonuses were for a job well done) then you think this grave error shouldn't be corrected? Who cares if you're an attorney or not, you sure do sound like an AIG whiner to me though. You have the NERVE to bring this Constitution into this, when if the Constitution had of been followed from the gick, these BS bonuses wouldn't have ever occurred? Get real you idiot.

By: Covered (kzhat)

Covered (kzhat) — Sat, 29 Aug 2009 00:29:49 +0000

Donna, you missed the point completely. I absolutely have the nerve to bring the Constitution into this, because the constitution is the FOUNDING of our country.

We have no business getting involved in private companies in the first place, MUCH LESS passing ex-post facto law to accomplish political gain due to our involvement.

I could care less if this was AIG, XYZ, QRS or any other company/agency/person/entity - whatever. It doesn't matter. Ex-post facto law is dangerous, frankly reckless and unconstitutional. In my personal opinion we had NO BUSINESS at all bailing out AIG. If this firm was truly a systemic risk, then fine - we back the debts/liabilities and allow the firm to fail. Nationalized and unwind/close.

In this case, the legislators screwed up. Now they must unwind what they did and handle is accordingly. In my opinion, accordingly is not by violating the constitution of the United States of America.

By: Donna

Donna — Sat, 29 Aug 2009 00:13:00 +0000

By: Covered (kzhat)

Covered (kzhat) — Tue, 24 Mar 2009 01:59:30 +0000

Indeed. I think you have hit the core of it on the head. The article that Tim posted at http://slopeofhope.com today from the Rolling Stone was a very pertinent example of exactly what you are describing.

By: Covered (kzhat)

Covered (kzhat) — Tue, 24 Mar 2009 01:57:46 +0000

I'll tell you what. I don't know how on earth the Supreme Court could uphold that ruling. Think of all of the laws that are civil. I can't imagine that any of those could be retroactively changed and then I would be held accountable to them. That is frightening to say the least.

By: babydoomer

babydoomer — Fri, 20 Mar 2009 11:27:32 +0000

I just don't think “we the People” are getting it yet. Everything done by our “leaders” is just theater. It is all a distraction. This law would be knocked down by the courts if it passes both houses and is signed by the prez, but it won't be. This is a pressure release valve for the anger we are all feeling for the royal screwing we are getting. Congress works for the big money; they don't represent us at all. The level of corruption in this country beats almost anywhere else in the world, at least in the sense that it is so lucrative for those in on the scams. The more we bicker about things like this, the less time we have to go to Washington and hang them all on a pike.

By: mvesk

mvesk — Fri, 20 Mar 2009 10:10:54 +0000

I'm no lawyer either. Possessing some common sense (and also being incensed by Washington's behavior of late), I started poking around and found this:

The U.S. Constitution prohibits ex post facto laws. However, the Supreme Court has held that that the prohibition of retroactive laws applies only to criminal, not civil, laws.

source: http://definitions.uslegal.com/e/ex-post-facto/

What do you think?