Response From Frank Wolf (R-VA, 10th District)

A couple of weeks ago, I called on Frank Wolf (R-VA) to resign his seat for violating the Constitution by voting "Yea" on HR 1586. For a refresher on that story, visit the following link:

Time For Frank Wolf (R-VA, 10th District) To Resign
84rules
March 20, 2009

My argument is that by voting for legislation that essentially amounts to both a Bill of Attainder and an Ex Post Facto law, Rep. Wolf violated his oath to uphold and defend the Constitution and must be held accountable for it. I sent Mr. Wolf a letter voicing my concerns and asking that he step down. I further made it known that my concerns were over the Constitutional issues, not the bonuses.

I got a response through the mail yesterday. A hard copy letter signed by Mr. Wolf. Here are two excerpts from that letter:

By a vote of 328-93 on March 19, the House passed the bill (H.R. 1586) to impose a new 90 percent tax on the bonuses paid after December 31, 2008, to employees of companies that recieved over $5 billion in taxpayer money.

Here, Mr. Wolf freely admits that HR 1586 qualifies as a Bill of Attainder, which is defined as any legislation that will pose negative effects on a narrowly defined group of people. Mr. Wolf himself defines that group. Further, Mr. Wolf noted that the date of the legislation in question was March 19, 2009 and that it would be retroactively enforced back to December 31, 2008. That qualifies this bill as an Ex Post Facto law.

So, why did he do it? Here is what he wrote:

While I had concerns about the rushed nature of the legislation and some of the legal and constitutional issues raised, I voted for the bill. I reached that decision because of the message that AIG's payment of bonuses was sending hard-working Americans whose tax money was being used to bail out the company.

That's it. Frank Wolf voted to trample on Article I, Section 9, Clause 3 of the Constitution of the United States in order to "send a message." He had no concern whatsoever that what he was doing violated the Constitution.

What's next? Will Mr. Wolf vote to repeal the 2nd Amendment in order to "send a message" to violent criminals? Maybe Mr. Wolf will vote to allow duties or taxes on exports from a certain state in order to "send a message" to the people of that state. Maybe Mr. Wolf will vote to impose taxes on a specific religious denomination in order to "send a message" to the members of that religion.

Mr. Wolf's actions regarding HR 1586 are inexcusable. His excuse for taking those actions is intolerable.

Anyone who would violate a certain part of our Constitution will be capable of violating other parts of the Constiotution. Such a person is not to be trusted.

I repeat my earlier call for Mr. Wolf's removal. I would rather deal with an honest Democrat than a disgraceful Republican. I have already decided that I will not support Frank Wolf for re-election in 2010.

Time For Frank Wolf (R-VA 10th District) To Resign. Otherwise, We Should Recall Him.

Frank Wolf (R-VA) is usually a stalwart Congressman who fights hard for the 10th District. But, his vote of "Yea" on HR 1586, the retroactive taxing of bonuses paid to AIG, shows that he is no longer worthy of our trust or respect.

Here's why he needs to go:

Article I, Section 9, Clause 3 of the Constitution of the United States may very well be on the chopping block. Yesterday, the House of Representatives voted to impose a 90% tax on the bonuses given out to AIG employees. Frank Wolf voted "Yea."

Now, the bonuses are not at issue here. Whether they are right or wrong, good or bad is immaterial to what is really going on.

The House passed a bill that is specifically forbidden by Article I, Section 9, Clause 3. “No Bill of Attainder or Ex Post Facto Law shall be passed.” You can pick either one of those and it would cover this 90% bonus tax.

First, a Bill of Attainder, in the context of the Constitution, means a bill that has a negative effect on a single person or group. A punitive tax that specifically targets a certain group (i.e. those who were to receive these bonuses) certainly falls under the definition here. That makes this tax unconstitutional.

Second, when Congress passed the stimulus package and Barack Obama put the Presidential signature on that bill, it became the law of the land. Part of that law is an amendment put in by Sen. Chris Dodd (D-CT) that specifically exempted these bonuses from any regulation. Now, Congress is seeking to implement a law that puts such regulation in place and they want to enforce this law retroactively. That is known as an Ex Post Facto law.

Either way you look at it, this 90% tax Congress wants to retroactively impose on bonus payments that had previously been made perfectly legal by Congress and the President, is wholly, completely and absolutely unconstitutional. It is not the bonuses that matter here. It is the fact that Mr. Wolf voted to allow Congress a power that it never had before and should absolutely never, ever have at all.

I have already written Mr. Wolf asking him to resign. I highly recommend that other residents of Virginia's 10th District do likewise.

Within the next few days, we residents of the 10th District need to get together and begin a recall campaign.

If Mr. Wolf is willing to violate this part of the Constitution, then he is willing to violate other parts of the Constitution as well. The 10th District deserves much better representation than that.

We need to come together and demand that Mr. Wolf step down before he votes to do even more damage to the Constitution's integrity.

Letters To Jim Webb And Mark Warner Concerning Retroactive Taxing Of Bonuses

Here are copies of the letters I emailed to Senators Webb and Warner concerning the retroactive taxes Congress wants to impose on the bonuses to be paid to employees of AIG.

Feel free to copy and paste this message and send it to your own Senators:

[Senator], I am writing you to ask you to vote "Nay" on the upcoming bill that would impose retroactive taxes on bonuses paid out to AIG employees. Whether those bonuses are right or wrong, good or bad, is immaterial to my concern here. I am concerned about the integrity of the Constitution of the United States of America. Specifically, Article I, Section 9, Clause 3 which clearly and unambiguously states: "No Bill of Attander or Ex Post Facto law shall be passed." HR1586 which passed the House yesterday falls, by definition, under that clause in two ways. First, a Bill of Attainder, in the context of the Constitution, means a bill that has a negative effect on a single person or group. A punitive tax that specifically targets a certain group (e.g. those who were to receive these bonuses) certainly falls under the definition here. That makes this tax unconstitutional. Second, when Congress passed the stimulus package and Barack Obama put the Presidential signature on that bill, it became the law of the land. Part of that law is an amendment put in by Sen. Chris Dodd (D-CT) that specifically exempted these bonuses from any regulation. Now, Congress is seeking to implement a law that puts such regulation in place and they want to enforce this law retroactively. That is known as an Ex Post Facto law. This too makes this legislation unconstitutional. Either way you look at it, this 90% tax Congress wants to retroactively impose on bonus payments that had previously been made perfectly legal by Congress and the President, is wholly, completely and absolutely unconstitutional. Anyone who would willingly violate a single provision of the Constitution would most certainly be willing to violate any other provision. Please do not be such a person. Please vote "Nay" on the Senate version of HR1586 and preserve the integrity of the Constitution. Thank you.

As I wrote earlier, if this becomes law and is not struck down by the Supreme Court, the Republic will be in grave danger.

House Of Representatives Votes Congress A Power It Never Had And Should Not Ever Have

Article I, Section 9, Clause 3 of the Constitution of the United States may very well be on the chopping block. Yesterday, the House of Representatives voted to impose a 90% tax on the bonuses given out to AIG employees.

Now, the bonuses are not at issue here. Whether they are right or wrong, good or bad is immaterial to what is really going on.

The House passed a bill that is specifically forbidden by Article I, Section 9, Clause 3. "No Bill of Attainder or Ex Post Facto Law shall be passed." You can pick either one of those and it would cover this 90% bonus tax.

First, a Bill of Attainder, in the context of the Constitution, means a bill that has a negative effect on a single person or group. A punitive tax that specifically targets a certain group (i.e. those who were to receive these bonuses) certainly falls under the definition here. That makes this tax unconstitutional.

Second, when Congress passed the stimulus package and Barack Obama put the Presidential signature on that bill, it became the law of the land. Part of that law is an amendment put in by Sen. Chris Dodd (D-CT) that specifically exempted these bonuses from any regulation. Now, Congress is seeking to implement a law that puts such regulation in place and they want to enforce this law retroactively. That is known as an Ex Post Facto law.

Either way you look at it, this 90% tax Congress wants to retroactively impose on bonus payments that had previously been made perfectly legal by Congress and the President, is wholly, completely and absolutely unconstitutional.

If this bill becomes law and is not struck down by the Supreme Court, then it sets a precedent that Congress can legislate retroactive laws and put through Bills of Attainder. For example, if Congress decided that they wanted to raise the income tax rate for 2007 to 50% and collect back taxes from everyone, they can point to this piece of legislation and say that they now have the power to do so and there will be nothing we can do to stop it.

I recommend that you send emails or make phone calls to your Senators and ask them to vote "nay" on this bill and to restore the integrity of the Constitution of the United States.

UPDATE:

Looks like the Wall Street Journal agrees with me:

A Smoot-Hawley Moment?
Wall Street Journal Review & Outlook
March 23, 2009

Tax The AIG Bonuses? Only If You Want To Violate The Constitution.

Article I, Section 9 of the Constitution of the United States of America clearly and unambiguously states: "No Bill of Attainder or Ex Post Facto Law shall be passed."

I'm sure we all remember this from our 4th grade history lessons. That's where I learned that "Ex Post Facto" means "After the Fact."

But, apparently, the Democrats and other members of Congress are not as well versed as I am about what is written in the Constitution.

First, we know that the Democrats in Congress voted to approve of a stimulus package that contained the Dodd Amendment which explicitly exempted the bonuses that AIG would pay out to its employees. Then, President Obama signed that legislation into law. This means that those bonuses were made perfectly legal according to the current Congress and the current President.

Now, they want to pass legislation that retroactively repeals that amendment.

According to the Fox News:

Senate and House lawmakers have returned to the idea of imposing heavy taxes to recover the bonus money. Ten House Democrats introduced a bill Tuesday to tax all bonuses above $100,000 at 100 percent to recoup all the "outrageous" AIG bonuses. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid also vowed to recover a sizeable chunk of the money. "Remember, we, as a Congress, are not defenseless. We can also do things," the Nevada Democrat said Tuesday, announcing he has tasked Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus, D-Mont., with crafting a proposal to recover the bonuses. He said the legislation would be proposed by Wednesday and subject the bonuses to a tax of more than 90 percent. He also said lawmakers would soon work with the administration to complete a Wall Street accountability bill.

This is precisely what the Framers of the Constitution envisioned as an "Ex Post Facto" law.

This legislation must not even be considered. Those who will be considering it or supporting it will be in violation of their oaths to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States.

So, what would you choose? Irrational emotionalism over something that the Democrat-controlled Congress and the Democrat President approved of, or would you choose to support the explicit admonitions of the U.S. Constitution?

I choose the latter.

You can access the complete article on-line here:

To Recover AIG Bonuses, Lawmakers Scramble To Undo Protections They Approved
FoxNews.com
March 17, 2009