Introducing the Star Chamber

The recent recipients of bonuses from AIG have been tried, convicted and urged to commit suicide by a number of prominent members of Congress, all for the crime of fulfilling their contracts.

Their actions are a disgrace to their offices and a betrayal of their oaths to protect the rest of us from such flagrant denials of due process.

But perhaps, somewhere in the thousands of pages of recent spending legislation the Bill of Rights has been replaced by the Star Chamber, of which Wikipedia says:

The Star Chamber (Latin Camera stellata) was an English court of law that sat at the royal Palace of Westminster until 1641. It was made up of Privy Counsellors, as well as common-law judges, and supplemented the activities of the common-law and equity courts in both civil and criminal matters. The court was set up to ensure the fair enforcement of laws against prominent people, those so powerful that ordinary courts could never convict them of their crimes. Court sessions were held in secret, with no indictments, no right of appeal, no juries, and no witnesses. Evidence was presented in writing. Over time it evolved into a political weapon and has become a symbol of the misuse and abuse of power by the English monarchy and courts.

It was mistakenly thought that in 1487 an act was passed which established a special "Court of Star Chamber" to deal with the nobles; however; the only legislation passed in that year in this context was to set up a tribunal to prevent the intimidation of juries and to stop retaining. It seems to have gone out of use by 1509 and it had no connection with the later Court of Star Chamber whose primary purpose was to hear political libel and treason cases.

In modern usage, legal or administrative bodies with strict, arbitrary rulings and secretive proceedings are sometimes called, metaphorically or poetically, star chambers. This is a pejorative term and intended to cast doubt on the legitimacy of the proceedings. The inherent lack of objectivity of any politically motivated charges has led to substantial reforms in English law in most jurisdictions since that time.

As the U.S. Supreme Court described it, "the Star Chamber has, for centuries, symbolized disregard of basic individual rights. The Star Chamber not merely allowed, but required, defendants to have counsel. The defendant's answer to an indictment was not accepted unless it was signed by counsel. When counsel refused to sign the answer, for whatever reason, the defendant was considered to have confessed." Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806, 821-22 (1975).

But at least we now precisely what "change" Mr. Obama has brought to us. We are no longer citizens of a free republic. We are subjects.

I'm Confused

Dear Mr. President,

Are you familiar with the “shareholders derivative suit”? It is a standard tool of corporate governance. It allows shareholders to sue the directors of a company for bad results. To be precise, the directors may be held personally liable for losses suffered by the company if they acted in bad faith, engaged in self dealing or failed to exercise due diligence. Making a bad business decision is not grounds for liability; making a bad decision without doing your homework is. Which calls to mind the AIG bailout and claims by various members of the government that they had no knowledge of the retention bonuses. Given your public commitment to transparency and accountability, would you kindly introduce legislation allowing voters to sue, personally, all members of Congress and the Executive who failed to do their homework?

I realize that most of these individuals have not yet ascended to the ranks of the Truly Evil Rich, so it would not be feasible to recover from them the billions they have frittered away. I would propose more modest consequences. Those found liable would be removed from office, disqualified from future office (even dogcatcher), lose all benefits (including campaign funds socked away for a rainy day) and be subjected to audits going back to three years before they first took office.

Applying this new liability to the AIG case does prevent some difficulties. Retroactive penalties are generally disapproved of as ex post facto laws, which are prohibited by the Constitution. Similarly, affected individuals may also claim that, by being singled out for punishment, they are the subjects of a Bill of Attainder, also prohibited by the Constitution. You may recall that the Bill of Attainder was a favorite tool of Henry VIII of England. He used it to legally murder a number of those who opposed, or simply displeased him. Yet, coming from the current Congress and Administration, the claim would would ring false. Recent legislation designed to recover the retention bonuses through punitive taxes certainly seems to be little more than legislation intended to punish a disfavored few.

Curiously, that disfavored few have attained that status by living up to their contracts. They EARNED the bonuses that have caused so much fuss. They kept their end of their deal with their employer – AIG – and the US government. If they snookered us, you and your should be attempting to discover who dropped the ball, not on how to welch on what turned out to be a bad deal for the US.

In sum, I am confused. It would seem that our Republic is in the hands of dishonest, vindictive incompetents willing to sacrifice even our most fundamental protections to preserve their positions of power. Your silence on these questions suggests that either you do not understand them or find no reason to object to them. You promised us “hope” and “change.” I hope you did not intend such an appalling change for the worse.


Scipio

PS I apologize for the slight deception in my last letter. I know there are not 37 Articles to the US Constitution. I was citing the Constitution of the former Soviet Union.