Law of the land

 
Years ago — many years ago — I was in a college sports club. This wasn’t just a pastime for me, it was a serious part of my life. Because I was on what I called “the work-study program” (i.e., I studied until the money ran out, then I worked for a year or two — usually for the college itself, to keep myself eligible for club membership — to build up enough of a cash reserve to start taking classes again), I spent ten full years in this same sports club. I chose my classes, and sometimes my work schedules, to accommodate the club’s meetings and workouts. Over the years, I dated between a quarter and a third of the female membership. This particular activity-slash-gathering-of-people was my principal (sometimes my only) activity outside work or classes, and almost the entirely of my social life. I say all this to emphasize just how important it was to me.

At one point, the assistant instructor left the club to devote himself to finishing his graduate work. The club president accepted a promotion to assistant instructor, leaving the presidency vacant. The vice-president … It is difficult for me to express, without using language I would prefer not to post on my LJ, just what an appalling character he was. He hit on the female students, even though (we discovered) he was married. He had passed out campaign posters when running for vice-president, something one just didn’t do in that venue: everybody knew you, and if they agreed you were right for the position, you got their vote; the club was devoted to the sport, and bringing politics into it was unseemly to a disturbing degree. He was the wrong person, in the wrong place, not just at that time but at any time.

Those of us who were serious about the club did not want him to be our president. The resigning president did his best to call a new election, and I was all for it … and the chief instructor, the man who every year submitted himself for re-election but then ruled firmly throughout his repeated terms, said flatly, “No. According to our constitution, the vice-president succeeds if the president is unable to complete his duties.” And that was that, and we were stuck with a thoroughly unsuitable character as our president for the remainder of the year.

I had been part of the attempt to sidestep the rules as they stood, in order to avoid an undesirable consequence; and, when we were called on it, I recognized even then that the resort to fundamental authority, however unfortunate the result, was the way things ought actually to be done. The law is the law, and if the law is wrong, you change the law rather than breaking (or ignoring) it.

I said all that so I could say this:

The attempts to pass laws confiscating the bonuses to AIG executives, or to tax those bonuses at 90% or more, are not only wrong but illegal. Under our Constitution, it isn’t just illegal to do such things, it’s illegal to make such laws. Bills of attainder (laws aimed not just at classes of persons but directed at specific individuals) and ex post facto legislation (enacting laws that alter the legal consequences of an act, after the act was committed) are both specifically prohibited by the U.S. Constitution, and for good reason.

I was against the bailouts, to AIG or to anyone else. My feeling is, if a business fails, let it fail; other businesses will rush in to fill the gap. If, however, you DO give it money to keep it in normal operation, then you have to let it operate normally. A business isn’t a government agency, and can’t be operated by political rules.

What we’re seeing is cynical political grandstanding. It’s also against the law. Allowing it to proceed is a direct threat to this nation.