90% tax on AIG, other bonuses

So today we hear that Congress--at least the House-- is about to pass a law that taxes at 90% all bonuses paid out to AIG and other institutions that have recently received money from the federal government. The intent of the bill is clear: take back some of those "outrageous" bonuses paid to executives at institutions that they helped drive into the ground. Regardless of what you think about the bonuses, the thought struck me: wouldn't this be an unconstitutional bill of attainder? The Constitution expressly prohibits Congress from passing a bill of attainder, which is a bill or law that focuses expressly on one particular person or group. (The purpose being I think pretty clear-- the government can't pick favorites but must instead pass laws that are generally applicable both on their face and in substance). Here, it's pretty clear that the one particular group inspiring the law are these AIG executives.

Just a thought. Not going to write a law review article about it. My guess is that there is a Supreme Court case that says that the Commerce Clause gives Congress enough leverage to override the proscription against bills of attainder and that the section referencing bills of attainder has been narrowly construed... but I'd like to hear a law professor's thoughts about this. Any law professor is welcome to appropriate this thought up and contact NPR!

That's enough for today-- and tomorrow! NCAA madness beckons!