3 ms·
The SC ruled that the retroactive immunity given to telecom companies was legal. I'm pretty sure "Ex Post Facto" is dead.
by jivatmanx 14y ago
The SC ruled that the retroactive immunity given to telecom companies was legal.
I'm pretty sure "Ex Post Facto" is dead.
- rayiner 14y agoEx post facto is not synonymous with "retroactive." See the post by David Redden in this thread: http://www.connorboyack.com/blog/ex-post-facto-law http://www.connorboyack.com/blog/ex-post-facto-law. "Secondly, while there’s some evidence that some of the “framers” thought “ex post facto” included civil laws, it’s well-established that the most influential federalists in the late 18th Century understood an “ex post facto law” to mean a law that was 1) criminal, 2) functioned retroactively, and 3) worked to the detriment of the accused. (See Crosskey, The True Meaning of the Constitutional Prohibition of Ex-Post Facto Laws, 14 U.Chi.L.Rev. 539 (1947))."
- _delirium 14y agoThe Supreme Court ruled in Calder v. Bull (1798) that the prohibition on ex-post-facto laws applies only to criminal laws, not civil matters. One could argue that shouldn't be the case, but it's not a later shift away from the 18th-century interpretation.
- mikeash 14y agoRetroactive immunity is rather the opposite of retroactive criminalization.