# AIG Hearing: CEO Impressive **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [March 18, 2009, 6:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/aig-hearing-ceo-impressive/489921 "2009-03-18T18:37:23Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 1\ **Showing post:** 29
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [March 19, 2009, 2:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/aig-hearing-ceo-impressive/489921/29 "2009-03-19T14:06:23Z")
Can Congress legally vote in the special tax to claw back these bonuses? Or rather, would such a law hold-up in court? Seems like a Bill of Attainder which is prohibited by the Constitution: Article I, Section 9, paragraph 3 says that: “No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law will be passed.” Since IANAL on looking it up I found this: > [@](#): > > Bills of attainder, ex-post-facto laws, and laws impairing the obligation of contracts, are contrary to the first principles of the social compact, and to every principle of sound legislation. The two former are expressly prohibited by the declarations prefixed to some of the State constitutions, and all of them are prohibited by the spirit and scope of these fundamental charters. > > SOURCE: [The Federalist Papers No. 44 – James Madison](http://usgovinfo.about.com/library/fed/blfed44.htm) So, while I despise the thought of these creeps getting paid substantial sums to deal with the mess they made that kind of reads to me like Congress is intent on targeting a specific group and undoing the obligation of a contract after-the-fact. --- _[View the full topic](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/aig-hearing-ceo-impressive/489921)._