Where is the ACLU on this matter?
I’m sure they must be outraged by the prospect of Barney releasing the names of the AIG employees that received bonuses.
Then again.
Circket…Cricket…Cricket
I guess privacy rights are only worth fighting for if we’re talking about terrorists and illegal aliens.
No. It all depends on who is doing the invading. If liberals, leftists, or Democrats are waging war, invading rights and “shredding” the Constitution no one is to say anything. Instead we are supposed to blather on about how wonderful our dear leaders are.
This is really disturbing to me. And, as you point out, those who demand the suspension of these rights for “them”, terrorism suspects and illegal alians, are finding out the consequences and how it can easily leak into “our” lives.
Just wait until one of these guys is attacked, hurt or killed. Then the congresscritters will be falling all over themselves to get to a microphone to decry the violence they are fomenting with their own rhetoric.
As for the idea of taxing these guys, doesn’t this sound an awful lot like a bill of attainder? For that matter, how is it not an ex post facto law? Guess those Consitutional protections don’t matter so much when there is a witchhunt.
It’s ridiculous to post the names of employees. Frank is an arse.
I thought the ex post facto prohibition only applied to criminal laws via *Calder v. *Bull.
.
MJuric has a thread going on this very topic. Tarp tax and the Constitution.
I think you can make the argument that siccing the IRS, which has criminal enforcement powers, is the same thing. I think the better argument is that it consitutes a bill of attainder. I have not looked at this in a while, but my recollection is that a bill of attainder was broader and included monetary penalties.
Careful, you might just see them pop up about this.
People like to rant about the ACLU not defending christian’s religious freedoms but they do.
Where is the ACLU on this matter?
I’m sure they must be outraged by the prospect of Barney releasing the names of the AIG employees that received bonuses.
Then again.
Circket…Cricket…Cricket
I guess privacy rights are only worth fighting for if we’re talking about terrorists and illegal aliens.
I listened to Barry Frank and his refusal to keep the names confidential and then I asked myself “Why does he need the names?” Seems to me it would be pretty damn easy as the government to “Get the names” in a manner that would force the names to remain confidential, tax returns for instance. Point being is that this isn’t about some "Government business, because this time next year they’ll have the names. It’s about “Getting the names into the public” so they have a target, in the mean time jeopardizing the safety of everyone on the list and “Demonizing” them for breaking no law and for having the audacity to do what that sector has been doing and encouraged to do for a decade or more now.
~Matt