Ex Post Facto Law

The U.S. Constitution's Article 1 Section 9, C.3 states: 'No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed,' and Section 10 says: 'No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law. . . .'
The 'words and the intent' of the Ex Post Facto Clause encompass '[e]very law that changes the punishment, and inflicts a greater punishment, than the law annexed to the crime, when committed.' Calder v. Bull, 3 U.S. (1 Dall.) 386, 390 (1798) (opinion of Chase, J.).
An ex post facto law is a law passed after the occurrence of an event or action which retrospectively changes the legal consequences of the event or action.
Obviously any law, Ex Post Facto, from the Latin meaning-"from after the action", is hereby Unconstitutional in nature. I think we can all agree on that, yes? So how is it that a law was passed to force AIG executives to return bonuses through punative taxation? How is it now that the same people who were screaming that Arizona's new immigration law is a violation of Constitutionally protected rights, garaunteed by the 4th Amendment, are the same people who are lining up to support legislation called "Big Oil Bailout Prevention Act" that would raise the economic damages liability cap for offshore oil spills from $75 million to $10 billion.
As White House spokesman Robert Gibbs put it on Monday the Obama administration will "keep a boot on the throat" of BP to make sure the company stops oil from a sunken rig from pouring into the Gulf of Mexico as soon as possible. (Would that be a Jack Boot, there Gibbsy?) If that doesn't all add up to Ex Post Facto legislation, I don't know what does.
If the Constitution of The United States isn't equal for all, then it is equal for none. If those in Congress expect to continue to pass laws for some and not others, as they see fit, then law is no longer a rule but a whim and our Republic is actually a Dictatorship.

Federal Govt Fail

Despite the emergency action plan, in place since 1994, the Federal Govt failed to stock the "fire booms" required to contain the oil spill.

Great, More Punitive Taxation

While it's true that the federal Oil Pollution Act, enacted in 1990 in response to the Exxon Valdez spill in Alaska, makes BP responsible for cleanup costs, the law caps the company's liability for economic damages — such as lost wages, shortened fishing seasons or lagging tourism — at $75 million, a pittance compared to potential losses.
Administration officials insist BP will be held responsible anyway, noting that if the company is found negligent or criminally liable, the cap disappears. Claims also can potentially be made under other state or federal laws, officials said.
Yet the liability cap is problematic enough that a trio of Democratic senators introduced legislation Monday raising it to $10 billion, and the administration quickly announced its support. Sens. Robert Menendez and Frank Lautenberg of New Jersey and Bill Nelson of Florida voiced concerns that unless the cap is raised, BP would avoid paying for the mess and leave small businesses, local government and fishermen with the bill.
Read More From AP Wire Here

Someone had better let President Obama in on the secret

Rich Fuentes-American Thinker

Whoops! There has been a federal government plan in place since 1968 to deal with major oil spills. The info is on the EPA website. Someone should've told Barack Obama and Carol Browner to check the EPA site two weeks ago!! What exactly is Carol Browner's responsibility in all of this as head of the EPA?? National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan Overview.Thomas Lifson adds:Considering the source (Erica Werner of Associated Press!), this artricle is amazing, debunking Obama's claim that ahve been involved since Day One of the oil spill.When the AP stops covering for Obama, he is on trouble.