Titus not only voted for Porkulus, after claiming she had read it, she voted for the unconstitutional tax on bonuses.

Like most politicians, Dina Titus has a long documented history of lies and distortions. It is painful to many of us in Nevada that she and Harry Reid represent our state in Washington.

I realize this is a bit off subject, however, I had to vent somewhere.

I wrote this on Political Machine…

Aside from this legislative action being a bill of attainder and perhaps ex post facto, you don’t even need to reach the constitutional questions to understand the issues regarding the 90% Tax. It violates basic contract law. AIG was given the money with the proviso it could hand out the bonuses (which mathematically speaking is a not even a pimple on the [redacted] of the economy). Taking away the money, which is essentially what the government is doing is effectively breaching the contract they entered into.

The reason this is so bad is because it establishes a bad business practice on the part of the government. How can businesses broker in good faith when one party can unilaterally screw up a part of the deal? Period!

Who in their right minds would bargain with such a party in the future? Forget about who the parties are for a moment to take the emotion out of it. If “A” agrees to give “B” five dollars to perform a service and “B” performs the service within the definition of the contract, “A” cannot arbitrarily an capriciously penalize them monetarily. That’s why “penalty clauses” in contract law are void ab initio. There must be something called a “liquidated damages clause.” One that accounts for behavior contemplated to be proscribed and reasonably accounts for damages lost in case of a breach.

Here, AIG does not breach and the government is effectively penalizing. This could chill future business and is wrong in basic contract principles as well as constitutional ones. Basically it’s really bad business, illegal under contract theory, and unconstitutional.

I’ve gotta tell you, this is first year law [redacted]. The more interesting question, honestly, is whether any one of these legislators can in good faith say they are upholding the constitution.

For me, this is a real problem. There is not one reasonable legal argument to be made in the alternative it would seem. Nada. This is coming from a Democrat. A big Obama supporter and one who will continue to support him. However, I don’t see a “good faith basis” for signing this into law. It’s laughable, to me, as a matter of law.

A bill of attainder targets a specific person or entity with punishment. Ex post facto laws most people understand, however, it is typically used in a criminal context and sometimes, depending on the circumstances, laws can be retroactive. The bill of attainder is an easier path to take.

This is the most blatant bill of attainder I’ve ever seen. This is an easy question on the Bar exam. Further, there are other ways to do this. Insofar as money is concerned with AIG, the government can (get this) MODIFY the contract. Yup. You can do that as long as both parties agree and there is separate consideration. The government can also enter into new contracts to offset the “losses.”

Sorry, this is a joke to me. I don’t care how much these people were paid. Further, there is another contract principle called “promissory estoppel” whereby AIG can argue they relied on statements by the Treasury and the bill itself to their detriment. This would create something called an implied contract the government would be breaching. On so many levels, this does not pass legal muster. Layer upon layer of problems — AND THEY CAN TAKE A DIFFERENT PATH TO ATTAIN THE SAME RESULTS. IDIOTS.

Lastly, folks may not want to hear this, but these numbers which might seem gaudy to a layperson are actually common business norms. That’s really a non-issue at this point, although, some people need to come to grips with the fact that it’s ok to be rich. This is how this business is supposed to work. The invisible hand will correct the problems. The 90 percent tax is not an invisible hand. This is black letter law shit.

It’s… fit for the Special Olympics Con-Law team. Whoops.

It was just supposed to paste the link after “All are welcome.” The other was a bit of satire I had left by accident when I hit the paste button. Sorry.

Your powers grow weak old man. Or woman. You could be a piece of currency. CGI and AI have come a long way. Muwahahahaha.

Basically, you’re nitpicking at an argument I made you agree with en toto. Some of the cosmetics you frown upon. Aside from not stepping to the plate and backpedaling now is it any wonder why the inane argument of “hypocrisy” is thrown around. This thread is a perfect example. Read what you’ve written above. Easily one could argue your contentions are hypocritical when compared to someone’s desire to squelch language, but I won’t go there. I’d be labeling your argument as a brand of socialism.

I’ve conformed my writing to the level of decorum stated here. By “Jedi Mind Tricks” I sorta meant you are making a post hoc fallacy. Trying to stack the deck to find something wrong with what I said because you’ve read either my writings at Comedy Central or on PM. So I’m socially a liberal. I’m also a big liberal when it comes to the First Amendment (as are most Republicans actually). But, fiscally, I’ve presented an argument above you have yet to refute.

The only thing you do is attempt. Let me repeat that. ATTEMPT to snipe at me with picayune cosmetic dumb dumb rounds. So, if you want to challenge the substance of what I say, fine, but, I’m perfectly able to curb my enthusiasm and perhaps one ought focus on the illegal bill that was apparently passed with the blessing of some Republicans.

Other than that, I have neither the time nor the inclination to discuss this….

DID YOU ORDER THE CODE RED!