Interesting People mailing list archives
Re: Does US Constitution SPECIFICALLY PROHBITS the passing of retroactive laws
From: David Farber <dave () farber net>
Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2008 04:10:02 -0800
________________________________________ From: Lin, Herb [HLin () nas edu] Sent: Sunday, February 17, 2008 6:03 PM To: David Farber; ip Cc: gep2 () terabites com Subject: RE: [IP] Does US Constitution SPECIFICALLY PROHBITS the passing of retroactive laws Not exactly. The first definition of what exactly constitutes an ex post facto law is found in Calder v Bull (3 US 386 [1798]), in the opinion of Justice Chase: 1st. Every law that makes an action done before the passing of the law, and which was innocent when done, criminal; and punishes such action. 2d. Every law that aggravates a crime, or makes it greater than it was, when committed. 3d. Every law that changes the punishment, and inflicts a greater punishment, than the law annexed to the crime, when committed. 4th. Every law that alters the legal rules of evidence, and receives less, or different, testimony, than the law required at the time of the commission of the offense, in order to convict the offender. In short, you can't do something retroactively if the result is to INCREASE the negative consequences of a past action - it is permitted to do something to decrease it. herb -----Original Message----- From: David Farber [mailto:dave () farber net] Sent: Sunday, February 17, 2008 3:09 PM To: ip Subject: [IP] Does US Constitution SPECIFICALLY PROHBITS the passing of retroactive laws ________________________________________ From: Gordon Peterson [gep2 () terabites com] Sent: Sunday, February 17, 2008 2:34 PM To: David Farber Subject: Re: [IP] Re: BEST LAW MONAY CAN BUY -- Senate votes Telecom immunity A recent post I read on the subject pointed out that the US Constitution SPECIFICALLY PROHBITS the passing of retroactive laws... which means that for the pResident to press for, or for Congress to pass, such legislation would be a dereliction of their duty and their sworn oath of office... and thus, in fact, itself (another!) impeachable offense. -- Gordon Peterson II http://personal.terabites.com 1977-2007: Thirty year anniversary of local area networking ------------------------------------------- Archives: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/247/=now RSS Feed: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/247/ Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com ------------------------------------------- Archives: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/247/=now RSS Feed: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/247/ Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Current thread:
- Does US Constitution SPECIFICALLY PROHBITS the passing of retroactive laws David Farber (Feb 17)
- <Possible follow-ups>
- Re: Does US Constitution SPECIFICALLY PROHBITS the passing of retroactive laws David Farber (Feb 18)
- Re: Does US Constitution SPECIFICALLY PROHBITS the passing of retroactive laws David Farber (Feb 18)