The Amer­i­can peo­ple are ea­ger to see jus­tice done, but Congress should not com­mit a greater in­jus­tice in their name. This leg­is­la­tion sets a danger­ous prece­dent for a tax agenda that will even­tu­ally reach into ev­ery pocket in Amer­ica.

The Washington Times Weekly - - Editorials -

mit sep­puku, told The Wash­ing­ton Times, “We go to lawyers in mak­ing the leg­is­la­tion and we think the leg­is­la­tion is con­sti­tu­tional.” But not all in Congress agree, by any means. And Pres­i­dent Obama, who is wait­ing to see what ver­sion of the bill comes to his desk, re­cently stated that “as a gen­eral propo­si­tion, you don’t want to be pass­ing laws that are just tar­get­ing a hand­ful of in­di­vid­u­als.”

Congress would do well to re­view the Supreme Court case Nixon v. Ad­min­is­tra­tor of Gen­eral Ser­vices (1977). Jus­tice con­gres­sional in­tent to pun­ish.” There is no doubt that Congress sought to ride the cur­rent wave of pub­lic dis­ap­proval to pe­nal­ize a spe­cific group of peo­ple. House Ways and Means Com­mit­tee Chair Charles Ran­gel, who spon­sored the House bill, made a silly and disin­gen­u­ous as­ser­tion Sun­day that the bill has “noth­ing to do with AIG.” Au con­traire, Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s of­fi­cial state­ment that “th­ese AIG ex­ec­u­tives will pay the Trea­sury in the form of this tax,” strikes one as a smok­ing gun.

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from USA

© PressReader. All rights reserved.