From what I’ve read of the very small amount of cases that deal with this issue, the Courts typically look to the impact of the law more than what may be on the Congressional Record regarding individual Representative’s motivations.

In this case, the law that the House passed applies to anyone receiveing a bonus from an entity that received more than $ 5 Billion in TARP funds. While this is a small universe of people, it is, I think, general enough to withstand a Bill of Attainder challenge.

Additionally, it’s worth noting that it appears highly likely that the Senate will not go as far as the House did and that the final legislation will be significantly moderated from what was passed yesterday.

If that’s the case, then I think most of these Constitutional arguments will become moot.

There are many many examples of the type of retroactive taxation that you’re talking about and there’s never been a successful court challenge to such a law.

A bill of attainder was a legislative act that singled out one or more persons and imposed punishment on them, without benefit of trial.

I’m not an attorney, let alone Laurence Tribe, but I can’t help but wonder if it could be argued that the bill is intended to be a punishment.

From my view, the bill is being proposed as an emergency response to outrage by constituents over the bonuses. Bonus recipients are just the red-headed stepchild being beaten by an alcoholic Congress drunk with power. Congress is punishing a definable class of easy targets.

Wouldn’t the motive of punishment be more pertinent than the scope of people affected?

As I see it, you cannot tax what I got last week with a bill passed this week. But then, I believe in the intent of the Constitution, and as I see it, that is what the framers of the Constitution intended to protect us from.

Thanks for the link to Calder v. Bull. I would like to think that it could be overturned, but I doubt this Court would.