The Constitution says, "No ex post facto law ... shall be passed".

[wildbilln864]

a snip/

"No matter the blizzard of bullshit from the 3-branch fascist depotism masquerading as our national govt, there is no such thing as legal retroactive immunity for crimes already committed. No matter the blizzard of bullshit from the corporate media, there is no such thing as legal retroactive immunity for crimes already committed. No matter the blizzard of bullshit from the elite channels of discourse -- political party bosses, law school professors, CEOs, and sundry dignitaries -- there is no such thing as legal retroactive immunity for crimes already committed.


The Constitution does not say, "We don't like ex post facto law, but Congress can go ahead and pass it, and then let the courts sort things out." The Constitution says, "No ex post facto law ... shall be passed". "
linky :hi:

[Selatius]

1. If it got to the Supreme Court, could we see a 5-4 decision in favor of immunity?

Just like they did with Bush v. Gore.

[rurallib]

5. 80% of federal judges have been appointed by repugs

so it is not like the constitution will be used as a measuring stick.

[williesgirl]

2. Since when did our Constitution matter to these criminals? rec'd

[dsc]

3. the problem with ex post facto laws is the other way

giving people immunity for past crimes wasn't what they founders feared. They feared people making things crimes retrospectively.

[unblock]

4. uh, wrong. congress CAN repeal and apply things retroactively

they cannot criminalize a LEGAL act that already occurred, but they CAN DEcriminalize an ILlegal act that already occurred.

[Wizard777]

6. I don't buy it. It's still an ex post facto law.

It's also Congresses way of usurping the Presidential power of pardon. The Constitution only gives the power of pardon to the President. Not Congress. The best way for congress to keep people out of jail for violating the laws they pass is to not pass those laws. Once the law is passed it out of congresses hands. It's up to the judiciary to over turn it or the president to pardon the violations. The best congress can do is repeal the law to prevent future prosecutions. But when you go to court you have to stand trial on the laws at the time you commited the crime. Even if what you did is nolonger illegal. All that matters is that it was illegal when you did it.

[Selatius]

9. I think Congress does it quite a lot. Ad hoc tax rebates for example.

They can say that you can get back, just for the heck of it, 10% of the taxes you already paid in the previous fiscal year. What they can't do is levy a tax on you on a period that has already passed, a retroactive tax. That would be struck down, I believe.

The same logic applies to criminal law. If you smoked pot in 2007 and pot was banned afterward in 2008, you can't be prosecuted for an act that transpired before the existence of the law that criminalized the activity.

[AzDar]

7. K & R...

(for that 'goddamned piece of paper'):patriot:

[BlooInBloo]

8. Teh stupid it BURNS!!!

Couldn't even be bothered to wiki it.

"However, not all laws with ex post facto effects have been found to be unconstitutional. One current U.S. law that has an ex post facto effect is the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006. This law, which imposes new registration requirements on convicted sex offenders, gives the U.S. Attorney General the authority to apply the law retroactively.<1> The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Smith v. Doe (2003) that forcing sex offenders to register their whereabouts at regular intervals and the posting of personal information about them on the Internet does not violate the constitutional prohibition against ex post facto laws, because compulsory registration of offenders who completed their sentences before new laws requiring compliance went into effect does not constitute a punishment.<2>"

I snipped an important part, about the *point* of the Constitutional prohibtion.

God Americans love being stupid more than just about anything else.

[MonkeyFunk]

10. sorry, that's wrong

there IS legal retroactive immunity, or a lessening of penalties.

Did you not hear about the drug convicts who recently had their sentences reduced because of changes to the law? Retroactive immunity is, in fact, constitutional.