3 ms·
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 con
by 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 agoYou'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.