4 ms·

A new law and a new tax is right up their alley, but this is the thing that got me: > But they add that under the regulators’ proposal the charge could be appl

A new law and a new tax is right up their alley, but this is the thing that got me: > But they add that under the regulators’ proposal the charge could be applied retroactively for five years — which they call “an alarming precedent” — and could amount to a bill of more than $220 million for California consumers. Edit: I just wanted to point out: As someone else mentioned in another thread on this article, there's an idea of "ex post facto" laws in the US constitution[1]. So considering this "an alarming precedent" when the authors of the constitution already knew of such a thing and prohibited it is a statement about our generation. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_One_of_the_United_States_Constitution#Section_10:_Limits_on_the_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_One_of_the_United_Stat...

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
schoen 8y ago
The ex post facto provision is normally interpreted to apply only to criminal laws, not to civil penalties or taxes.
- dragonwriter 8y ago
  > The ex post facto provision is normally interpreted to apply only to criminal laws, not to civil penalties or taxes. FWIW, the precedent distinguishing prohibited ex post facto laws from permitted retrospective laws was established by the Supreme Court when ink on the Constitution was practically still wet, in Calder v. Bull (1798).
  - PurpleBoxDragon 8y ago
    It has also been rolled back. I do not remember the specific case, but it dealt with the SOR requirements being extended on people long after they has been convicted and sentenced due to a change in SOR laws. The courts ruled that it did not violate ex post facto. If that doesn't violate it, then taxes definitely wouldn't either. I think there is an applicable quote about defending scoundrels that would apply here.
    - schoen 8y ago
      You're probably thinking of Smith v. Doe from 2003. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smith_v._Doe https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smith_v._Doe An interesting side note is that many state courts have continued to strike down similar provisions, and some Federal courts have apparently also concluded that certain rules about sex offenders are "punitive" and so constitutionally invalid as outside of the Smith v. Doe rule. So this example is hard to summarize in a simple way, not least because many other courts have been trying to narrow this rule.
- DuskStar 8y ago
  Which says some depressing things about our legal system, in my opinion.
  - JumpCrisscross 8y ago
    > Which says some depressing things about our legal system, in my opinion Not really. The laws still need to be passed. I believe Deepwater Horizon was largely resolved with ex post facto legislation.
handedness 8y ago
The applicability of ex post facto constitutionality to taxes aside, the effective radius of the US Constitution appears to sometimes fall just short of the California legislature[1]. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rG5xWcV412E https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rG5xWcV412E

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

schoen 8y ago

The ex post facto provision is normally interpreted to apply only to criminal laws, not to civil penalties or taxes.

dragonwriter 8y ago
> The ex post facto provision is normally interpreted to apply only to criminal laws, not to civil penalties or taxes. FWIW, the precedent distinguishing prohibited ex post facto laws from permitted retrospective laws was established by the Supreme Court when ink on the Constitution was practically still wet, in Calder v. Bull (1798).
- PurpleBoxDragon 8y ago
  It has also been rolled back. I do not remember the specific case, but it dealt with the SOR requirements being extended on people long after they has been convicted and sentenced due to a change in SOR laws. The courts ruled that it did not violate ex post facto. If that doesn't violate it, then taxes definitely wouldn't either. I think there is an applicable quote about defending scoundrels that would apply here.
  - schoen 8y ago
    You're probably thinking of Smith v. Doe from 2003. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smith_v._Doe https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smith_v._Doe An interesting side note is that many state courts have continued to strike down similar provisions, and some Federal courts have apparently also concluded that certain rules about sex offenders are "punitive" and so constitutionally invalid as outside of the Smith v. Doe rule. So this example is hard to summarize in a simple way, not least because many other courts have been trying to narrow this rule.
DuskStar 8y ago
Which says some depressing things about our legal system, in my opinion.
- JumpCrisscross 8y ago
  > Which says some depressing things about our legal system, in my opinion Not really. The laws still need to be passed. I believe Deepwater Horizon was largely resolved with ex post facto legislation.

handedness 8y ago

The applicability of ex post facto constitutionality to taxes aside, the effective radius of the US Constitution appears to sometimes fall just short of the California legislature[1]. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rG5xWcV412E https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rG5xWcV412E