This group should consider joining in a class action suit against all individuals in Congress that voted today to pass an unquestionably illegal bill to tax the AIG employees at a 90% rate. Regardless of your outrage at the millions of dollars paid to these people, Congress first assured they would receive those bonuses by an amendment to the bill (Senator Dodd) and then turned around with indignation (because the populous reacted so violently) and passed a clearly illegal bill to punish them for accepting them. Our representatives all swore an oath to uphold the Constitution and today they showed us they will ignore it when convenient.

There is much language in the Constitution that is open to interpretation and continually debated (look at the second amendment) but this is not the case here. 12 words that cannot be interpreted any way other than what is clearly stated here:

Definition of a Bill of Attainder: 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." 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).

My question to you all:

IF A LEGISLATIVE BODY ENACTS LEGISLATION THAT DIRECTLY VIOLATES THE ACCEPTED LAW OF THE LAND (THE US CONSTITUTION) IS THAT NOT IN ITSELF A CRIMINAL ACT???

I have never considered myself an extremist nor an alarmist and I have been content to lurk and quietly fume about the current state of affairs in my country. After watching what happened today, everything else seems miniscule in comparison. Yesterday I truly believed our Constitution protected my rights as a US Citizen. Today I know that is no longer the case. Clearly , we can no longer depend on others to speak up for us. We MUST speak up for ourselves and unless you have a microphone like GB, our only hope of being heard is to act in unison. I, like all of you, love my country, a country based on the value and critical importance of Law. Without is there is only anarchy and my government proved today that the law can be ignored in the light of day because they believe 'WE BELIEVE' we can't do anything about it.