6 ms·

retroactive legislation is unconstitutional... article 1: No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed. https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/

retroactive legislation is unconstitutional... article 1: No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed. https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artI-S9-C3-2/ALDE_00001089/ https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artI-S9-C3-2/... Here's a pdf by the congressional research service discussing the nuances: https://sgp.fas.org/crs/misc/IF11293.pdf https://sgp.fas.org/crs/misc/IF11293.pdf

rootusrootus 4y ago
Just make it a civil matter instead of criminal, where the state itself is not one of the litigants. Ta-da! What Constitution?
jstarfish 4y ago
I slept through political science, but I'm awake enough to notice that what's been going on in other contexts lately is that a state will pass a law (constitutional or not) and just start acting on it. For its constitutionality to be challenged, it has to be escalated all the way to the Supreme Court. This can take years, does not happen for free, and in the end, the trolls who sit on the Supreme Court retain the right to refuse to hear it. The system appears to be very broken.
- civilized 4y ago
  Roe vs Wade has been in legal conservative crosshairs since it was decided. There is no movement by anyone to undermine the prohibition on ex post facto laws. These two things are very, very different in how legally well-founded they are in the eyes of conservatives. I know this decision is awful for many people and has created justified anger, but this isn't the Anschluss. The people who did this aren't trying to destroy every venerated legal structure in the country to impose their will. Not saying it's 100% impossible for some crazy thing to happen, your wife's anxiety is understandable, but I think a bit of perspective could help avoid needless panic. I would also remember that Trump's bid to disregard the election was shut down in part by judges he appointed. Legal conservatives do actually want to conserve the legal traditions of the country, for the most part.
  - roflyear 4y ago
    Have you been following other insane SCOTUS decisions?
    - civilized 4y ago
      I haven't seen any that would suggest I should see the current SCOTUS as an arbitrary monster with no respect for any legal structure. Are we able to draw a distinction between people who have a perspective we profoundly disagree with - even despise - and utterly ruthless, insane monsters?
      - roflyear 4y ago
        Yeah you should read some of the other opinions!
        civilized 4y ago
        Please name one.
pavon 4y ago
That prevents new laws from being applied retroactively. What would happen if a state law against abortion already existed before Roe vs Wade. It has been unenforceable, but was never repealed by state legislature. Would it be legal to retroactively enforce that law now? I know my state had such laws, and there was a push to get them repealed after Barrett was appointed. Don't know if retroactive enforcement was a concern or just future enforcement.

rootusrootus 4y ago

Just make it a civil matter instead of criminal, where the state itself is not one of the litigants. Ta-da! What Constitution?

jstarfish 4y ago

I slept through political science, but I'm awake enough to notice that what's been going on in other contexts lately is that a state will pass a law (constitutional or not) and just start acting on it. For its constitutionality to be challenged, it has to be escalated all the way to the Supreme Court. This can take years, does not happen for free, and in the end, the trolls who sit on the Supreme Court retain the right to refuse to hear it. The system appears to be very broken.

civilized 4y ago
Roe vs Wade has been in legal conservative crosshairs since it was decided. There is no movement by anyone to undermine the prohibition on ex post facto laws. These two things are very, very different in how legally well-founded they are in the eyes of conservatives. I know this decision is awful for many people and has created justified anger, but this isn't the Anschluss. The people who did this aren't trying to destroy every venerated legal structure in the country to impose their will. Not saying it's 100% impossible for some crazy thing to happen, your wife's anxiety is understandable, but I think a bit of perspective could help avoid needless panic. I would also remember that Trump's bid to disregard the election was shut down in part by judges he appointed. Legal conservatives do actually want to conserve the legal traditions of the country, for the most part.
- roflyear 4y ago
  Have you been following other insane SCOTUS decisions?
  - civilized 4y ago
    I haven't seen any that would suggest I should see the current SCOTUS as an arbitrary monster with no respect for any legal structure. Are we able to draw a distinction between people who have a perspective we profoundly disagree with - even despise - and utterly ruthless, insane monsters?
    - roflyear 4y ago
      Yeah you should read some of the other opinions!
      - civilized 4y ago
        Please name one.

pavon 4y ago

That prevents new laws from being applied retroactively. What would happen if a state law against abortion already existed before Roe vs Wade. It has been unenforceable, but was never repealed by state legislature. Would it be legal to retroactively enforce that law now? I know my state had such laws, and there was a push to get them repealed after Barrett was appointed. Don't know if retroactive enforcement was a concern or just future enforcement.