When Congress deliberately and explicitly violates the Constitution, what is left of the basis for our country?

We may and often do disagree (even on S&L) about principles, politics and policy, but certainly we can at least agree that the Constitution is the foundation that makes all of our freedoms possible. It’s the most basic principle of all. At least, that’s the way I see it.

http://www.techlawjournal.com/.....ainder.htm

“Bill of Attainder

Definition: A legislative act that singles out an individual or group for punishment without a trial.

The Constitution of the United States, Article I, Section 9, paragraph 3 provides that: “No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law will be passed.”

“The Bill of Attainder Clause was intended not as a narrow, technical (and therefore soon to be outmoded) prohibition, but rather as an implementation of the separation of powers, a general safeguard against legislative exercise of the judicial function or more simply – trial by legislature>/b>.” U.S. v. Brown, 381 U.S. 437, 440 (1965).

“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.

“Bills of attainder, ex post facto laws, and laws impairing the obligations of contracts, are contrary to the first principles of the social compact, and to every principle of sound legislation. … The sober people of America are weary of the fluctuating policy which has directed the public councils. They have seen with regret and indignation that sudden changes and legislative interferences, in cases affecting personal rights, become jobs in the hands of enterprising and influential speculators, and snares to the more-industrious and less-informed part of the community.” James Madison, Federalist Number 44, 1788.

Supreme Court cases construing the Bill of Attainder clause include:

Ex Parte Garland, 4 Wallace 333 (1866).
Cummings v. Missouri, 4 Wallace 277 (1866).
U.S. v. Brown, 381 U.S. 437 (1965).
Nixon v. Administrator of General Services, 433 U.S.425 (1977).
Selective Service Administration v. Minnesota PIRG, 468 U.S. 841 (1984). ”

In a just world, every congress person who votes to impose the 90% tax Bill of Attainder would be impeached for committing a high crime.

Since the guilty parties will never inforce the Constitution on themselves, we the people are going to have to do it.

Tell your congressional representatives that you will vote them out of office if they violate the Constitution. Period.

The courts will rule that no one has “standing” to question the law and that “Americans were not hurt” and thus it will never be heard.

That’s ignoring the fact that regular courts will never hear this, but it will instead be shuffled off to the IRS’ “tax court” instead.

10-7

You pose an interesting point. I work in a union shop. When I was first hired, the company, (hereafter known as ‘the company’) was the ENEMY. Management and ‘the company’ had an agenda to do as little for the worker as possible.

My position is mixed. I enjoy the benefits of the union but at the same time realize that to say, today, in a time of turmoil that “we should jsut shut the company down” is professional suicide. I generally do not like/admire/respect that position

On the other hand, in the earlier part of this decade, the union proved to be an effective bargaining tool that preserved the value of the workplace while affording the company the ability to make a profit. Indeed, we approached it from the standpoint of “we aren’t out to destroy the company…but we have to protect our interests as much as makes sense” and we went to the table many, many times.

I think with cool heads, staying upwind and being adult about everything, it can work out. This is why I have little sympathy for the big three. Their line is that both management and unions have collectively worked to undermine a good thing. The union demanded everything and managmment let them have it.

I operate under the premise that the goal of every company is to make money. But, I praise the company that values its employees and recognizes talent. I abhore the employee who figures he can never get fired because he’s union. But also, when an employee gets singled out unfairly, the union can do much to protect that person.

So I categorize it in the “necessary evil” file. I have also worked at the exact same job for a different company without a union. I never for a minute felt I was in any danger. Management treated me very well. I, in turn, offered managment the respect I felt was in order. And it was a great place to work.

I guess what I’m trying to say is that if the democrats think that unionizing employees is the answer, they are fairly wrong. The basic premise is flawed because, well, first of all this isn’t 1925. Second, most employees now realize that in stiff competitive times for employment, if you have the attitude of shutting down your place of employment, then you DESERVE to be unemployed.

Personally, where I work now, I fear that without a union, the maangement would, as it historically did in the past, run roughshod over each work group and put us all in a very bad mood. By the same token, the climate here is slowly changing and though I don’t think the union will ever go away, it may have to be much less active.

BTW, who are the other two morons flanking Pimps Rangel and BoTox Piglosi?

Bambi , his administration and Dems have single handedly assaulted supply and demand, micro / macro, horizontal and vertical, within 60 days

Spot on.

Business is the biggest threat to the Authoritarians/Oligarchy/ComSocialists. People in business have the ability to SUCCEED, and above all else, they must prove that success is impossible without the government rationing it out.

This is an all out war on business in general, and the attempt to brainwash as many as possible into thinking that a union would be the way to “Get even with my evil rich company owners” God help us all.

You know, the more I think about, it’s about time to speak up and frankly about these morons in Congress and assert the “We the People” proposition.