The problem with the huffpo article is that even with a failure, you can get tons of information about the launch. Because it wasnt blasted out of the air by Japan, the NK's were able to gather all of that information, and also probably find out WHY the second rockets didnt work, and why they were short, and why the satellite didnt separate.
I think Obama should overreach with the security council because China and Russia will scale it down. Just like his budget plan, its bigger than what will get passed, but he's started the ball on the high end so that when it gets cut down a bit it will still be close to what he wanted.
Good to know HRC is out there with him and that Hu Jintao and BO had a good meeting. That can go a long way to getting 6 party talks back on the table.
Generally: A statute which imposes a tax is not unconstitutional per se merely because it is retroactive in its language or in its operation
Examples of cases saying that it is not necessarily unconstitutional.
General Telephone Co. of Illinois v. Johnson, 103 Ill. 2d 363, 83 Ill. Dec. 133, 469 N.E.2d 1067 (1984);
Opinion of the Justices, 370 A.2d 654 (Me. 1977)
Replan Development, Inc. v. Department of Housing Preservation and Development of City of New York, 70 N.Y.2d 451, 522 N.Y.S.2d 485, 517 N.E.2d 200 (1987)
Pabst v. Commissioner of Taxes, 136 Vt. 126, 388 A.2d 1181 (1978)
Japan Line, Ltd. v. McCaffree, 88 Wash. 2d 93, 558 P.2d 211 (1977).
but there must be some limit to the legislature's ability to tax past events (like it cant be over a very long period of time).
Philadelphia Life Ins. Co. v. Com., 454 Pa. 157, 309 A.2d 811 (1973).
A court must consider nature of tax measure and circumstances leading to its adoption before court may determine that its retroactive application is so harsh and oppressive as to transgress constitutional limitations.
SO harsh and oppressive is the test of constitutionality, not retroactivity.