The Blogshevik

Bwarney Fwank

Well well well…Regardless of how you feel about the whole AIG-Gate and I for one am pretty pissed off at this whole bonus thing, but I also know that in business you have to make some pretty tough decisions. In addition, I also know that if you own a company and wish it to succeed, you certainly don’t sabotage its growth and prosperity. Well, a vote was taken recently at the house that I’m sure you’re aware of, a vote that apparently wants to supplant the US Constitution, you know, that piece of parchment that used to be a really important document.

Without going into the whole thing and I’m sure if you’re reading this you know of the resolution already, our esteemed representatives want to tax the crap out of those bonuses we’re all googly over. Now, being upset is quite acceptable but is it necessary to subvert the US Constitution while trying to punish those responsible? Besides, who’s really responsible? Is Mr Liddy (AIG CEO) responsible or is it the dopes that allowed this to happen in the first place?

I for one am in no way holding Mr. Liddy responsible for this, he’s doing what the government asked him to do. I blame those knuckleheads at the FED , Chuckie Rangle, Mr Geithner of the Treasury and of course the Field Marshall of Fckups, Obama.  We musn’t forget the Grand Poobah of Stupid either, The Honorable Lying Sack Of Shit, Senator Dodd. I’d mention Bwarny Fwank though just typing his name backs my pooper up and….oh for fks sake, I’ll be right back.

Oh the wonder of over the counter medicinal orifice openers…

The point of this post is to clue you in to who in fact voted “yea” for HR 1586. I’ve taken the following list from here. It shouldn’t be a surprise that a lot of democrats voted for passage, but what’s interesting is the list of republicans. The list is long so forgive me.

THE REPUBLICAN YEAS

Now, to be fair, I’d also like to list the republicans and democrats who voted “nay” on the resolution. It appears as if some actually paid attention in school and remember that the US Constituion mentions just this sort of “fckuptedness”. Here, I’ll give you the low-down on what it says. From here.

Attainder

attainder n. The loss of all civil rights by a person sentenced for a serious crime. [< OFr. attaindre, to convict] Source: AHD

In the context of the Constitution, a Bill of Attainder is meant to mean a bill that has a negative effect on a single person or group (for example, a fine or term of imprisonment). Originally, a Bill of Attainder sentenced an individual to death, though this detail is no longer required to have an enactment be ruled a Bill of Attainder.

Ex post facto

ex post facto adj. Formulated, enacted, or operating retroactively. [Med Lat., from what is done afterwards] Source: AHD

In U.S. Constitutional Law, the definition of what is ex post facto is more limited. The first definition of what exactly constitutes an ex post facto law is found in Calder v Bull (3 US 386 [1798]), in the opinion of Justice Chase:

1st. Every law that makes an action done before the passing of the law, and which was innocent when done, criminal; and punishes such action.

2d. Every law that aggravates a crime, or makes it greater than it was, when committed.

3d. Every law that changes the punishment, and inflicts a greater punishment, than the law annexed to the crime, when committed.

4th. Every law that alters the legal rules of evidence, and receives less, or different, testimony, than the law required at the time of the commission of the offense, in order to convict the offender.

Uhhh, yeah…pretty plain stuff eh?

Ok, so who voted “nay”?

Republicans are in “italic’ and democrats in “bold”

Republican & Democrat “nays”:

So while a lot of us constitutional conservatives often hammer on the democrats on policy making and such, we often overlook the idjits who barf out conservatism but really don’t know what it means. To supplant the US Constitution is treasonous. It isn’t there to rewrite, to bastardize. It’s there and has been there as a foundation to a free society. Ignoring it can do more damage than any number of terrorist piloted airliners.

I’m certainly no lahyah, but it’s pretty damn clear to me, or am I missing something? Or are these so called lawyers really just a bunch of windowlicking fcktards? They really need a carnival barker posted outside congress, seriously. It’s a bloody freak show.

But wait! There’s MORE! I won’t bother with it at this time, but you can see what’s been written on Hot Air, I see a bad moon rising…..I’m sure there will be a gaggle of constitutional lawyers citing this and that, that indeed this resolution isn’t unconstitutional and others who say it is. It’s just interesting how much these morons can continually screw things up and get paid by US for doing so. I got into the wrong line of work.

Be careful what you wish for though, it might be YOUR bonus next. They might declare your bonus as “commercially impracticable”. There’s nothing like cutting capitalism off at the knees eh?

And so it blows….