Go to your favorite law blog for a primer on this – but James Taranto raises an interesting point about the arguments you’ll find there:
Another way of describing this is by way of a simile … "It's like they're throwing a grenade at the problem, hitting the good and the bad at the same time." If Congress instead used a sniper rifle to take out specific individuals alleged to have done wrong, that would unquestionably have been a bill of attainder. The more indiscriminate the destruction Congress wreaks, the more likely its choice of weapon is to pass constitutional muster, at least as far as the bill of attainder clause goes. [emphasis added]
Consider what that means about this proposed tax, which has 1) punitive rates on narrow brackets, 2) a targeted tax base, and 3) retroactivity.
The implication of Taranto’s point is that future policies like this are more likely to be found constitutional if 1) the punitive rates are on broader brackets, 2) the targeted tax base is broader, and 3) the retroactive time frame is broader.
Is that a recipe you like?
