[traditional1]

That's the way I see it, too. Along with that, how is this not a "taking" (personal property) under the Constitution, also?

Inquiring minds want to know!

[Red in Blue PA]

But it should not even get to the argument of “personal property” if it indeed is an ex post facto law, which would be unconstitutional.

In the United States, ex post facto laws are prohibited in federal law by Article I, section 9 of the U.S. Constitution and in state law by section 10. Over the years, when deciding ex post facto cases, the United States Supreme Court has referred repeatedly to its ruling in the Calder v. Bull case of 1798, in which Justice Chase established four categories of unconstitutional ex post facto laws. The case dealt with Article I, section 10, since it dealt with a Connecticut state law.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ex_post_facto_law

[o_zarkman44]

The sucking sound you hear from the stock market is the people closing out their 401k’s (whats left of them) and taking a 15% tax instead of who knows what.

this is just a tip of the iceberg what the marxists plan on grabbing.