6 ms·

Given that ex post facto laws are specifically prohibited in the Constitution, that sounds fantastically farfetched even for this thread.

accountoftheday 13y ago
Ex post facto, such as the retroactive changes in CA tax law?
- twoodfin 13y ago
  Way back to Calder v. Bull in 1798, the U.S. Supreme Court has held that the ex post facto restriction applies to criminal law, not civil matters like taxation. Unusual retroactive taxation could face a due process challenge, but the basic "pass a tax law January 20 that extends backwards to January 1" kind of retroactivity has been upheld several times.
  - mindslight 13y ago
    Just because the Supreme Council condones something does not mean that it is consistent with the Constitution (which is itself only relevant because it's USG's purported charter).
    - jessedhillon 13y ago
      Just because the Supreme Council condones something does not mean that it is consistent with the Constitution... Assuming that by "Supreme Council" you mean "Supreme Court" -- that is exactly what it means. There is no way to determine whether or not a thing is in accordance with the Constitution other than to ask a court to decide. It's called The Rule of Law. The other system is called, "internet randos and other people with Ron Paul signs in front of their house decide what the Constitution means." I'll take the first one, thank you.
      - mindslight 13y ago
        So then according to your viewpoint, the text of the Constitution is an opaque blob to anyone besides the SC. Since there's no way for an individual to judge for themselves whether the government's charter is being followed, we must simply accept any decree from the ruling council of nine. This does not sound like "The Rule of Law" to me.
        mpyne 13y ago
        You can have your own opinion all you like. The one the government will operate by (with certain historical exceptions...) is the Supreme Court's.
        mindslight 13y ago
        Well obviously. The problem comes about when someone wishes to rule out the idea that the SC can make faulty judgments by construction (usually because they wish to keep believing that USG has not failed horribly at its design goals).
        jessedhillon 13y ago
        The problem comes about when someone wishes to rule out the idea that the SC can make faulty judgments by construction... That's what it fucking means to be supreme! There is literally no higher authority unless you want to start shooting people! If you don't like a Supreme Court ruling you can only petition the court to reverse itself or amend the Constitution. By definition, the Supreme Court is the highest legal authority, ergo if they make a "mistaken" ruling (according to whom?) there is no higher legal authority to express that conclusion. So yes, by construction no power exists to override the court, only to amend the Constitution. Faulty judgments are part of the system, the rule of law is the system whereby you agree to operate within this system, even when rulings are made which you personally object to.
        mindslight 13y ago
- alextingle 13y ago
  And the various copyright extension bills.
adventured 13y ago
That would be far too much trouble to go through. The Feds don't need to change laws, arrest or convict these people to endlessly torture their lives in retribution.
bmelton 13y ago
Ex post facto doesn't necessarily come into play with statute of limitations though. Ex post facto prevents a once-legal situation from becoming illegal, so as (extreme hyperbole here) to prevent the government from outlawing reading books tomorrow, and punishing everybody who read a book today. There are additional sideways extensions to ex post facto that prevent milder penalties from being increased, and that sort of thing (e.g., so that if they'd arrested Capone on Jaywalking, they can't increase the penalties to be life-long prison sentences or what have you), but there aren't any provisions in the actual Constitution that prohibit adjustments of statute. That said Stogner v. California is the relevant case here, which ruled that express act as unconstitutional, despite its omission from the Constitution proper, but even in that case, it was overturned, then upheld, then overturned again, so its provisions aren't so obvious that some clever wording couldn't complicate the issue further enough into more vagueness. Lest we forget that the government can, and very often does pass laws that seem "clearly" unconstitutional. Even further, sometimes those laws are upheld.
nilved 13y ago
Are you even serious? About 99% of what the American government does is specifically prohibited in the Constitution.
- jessedhillon 13y ago
  I think you and I must not agree on what the word "serious" means.

accountoftheday 13y ago

Ex post facto, such as the retroactive changes in CA tax law?

twoodfin 13y ago
Way back to Calder v. Bull in 1798, the U.S. Supreme Court has held that the ex post facto restriction applies to criminal law, not civil matters like taxation. Unusual retroactive taxation could face a due process challenge, but the basic "pass a tax law January 20 that extends backwards to January 1" kind of retroactivity has been upheld several times.
- mindslight 13y ago
  Just because the Supreme Council condones something does not mean that it is consistent with the Constitution (which is itself only relevant because it's USG's purported charter).
  - jessedhillon 13y ago
    Just because the Supreme Council condones something does not mean that it is consistent with the Constitution... Assuming that by "Supreme Council" you mean "Supreme Court" -- that is exactly what it means. There is no way to determine whether or not a thing is in accordance with the Constitution other than to ask a court to decide. It's called The Rule of Law. The other system is called, "internet randos and other people with Ron Paul signs in front of their house decide what the Constitution means." I'll take the first one, thank you.
    - mindslight 13y ago
      So then according to your viewpoint, the text of the Constitution is an opaque blob to anyone besides the SC. Since there's no way for an individual to judge for themselves whether the government's charter is being followed, we must simply accept any decree from the ruling council of nine. This does not sound like "The Rule of Law" to me.
      - mpyne 13y ago
        You can have your own opinion all you like. The one the government will operate by (with certain historical exceptions...) is the Supreme Court's.
        mindslight 13y ago
        Well obviously. The problem comes about when someone wishes to rule out the idea that the SC can make faulty judgments by construction (usually because they wish to keep believing that USG has not failed horribly at its design goals).
        jessedhillon 13y ago
        The problem comes about when someone wishes to rule out the idea that the SC can make faulty judgments by construction... That's what it fucking means to be supreme! There is literally no higher authority unless you want to start shooting people! If you don't like a Supreme Court ruling you can only petition the court to reverse itself or amend the Constitution. By definition, the Supreme Court is the highest legal authority, ergo if they make a "mistaken" ruling (according to whom?) there is no higher legal authority to express that conclusion. So yes, by construction no power exists to override the court, only to amend the Constitution. Faulty judgments are part of the system, the rule of law is the system whereby you agree to operate within this system, even when rulings are made which you personally object to.
        mindslight 13y ago
alextingle 13y ago
And the various copyright extension bills.

adventured 13y ago

That would be far too much trouble to go through. The Feds don't need to change laws, arrest or convict these people to endlessly torture their lives in retribution.

bmelton 13y ago

Ex post facto doesn't necessarily come into play with statute of limitations though. Ex post facto prevents a once-legal situation from becoming illegal, so as (extreme hyperbole here) to prevent the government from outlawing reading books tomorrow, and punishing everybody who read a book today. There are additional sideways extensions to ex post facto that prevent milder penalties from being increased, and that sort of thing (e.g., so that if they'd arrested Capone on Jaywalking, they can't increase the penalties to be life-long prison sentences or what have you), but there aren't any provisions in the actual Constitution that prohibit adjustments of statute. That said Stogner v. California is the relevant case here, which ruled that express act as unconstitutional, despite its omission from the Constitution proper, but even in that case, it was overturned, then upheld, then overturned again, so its provisions aren't so obvious that some clever wording couldn't complicate the issue further enough into more vagueness. Lest we forget that the government can, and very often does pass laws that seem "clearly" unconstitutional. Even further, sometimes those laws are upheld.

nilved 13y ago

Are you even serious? About 99% of what the American government does is specifically prohibited in the Constitution.

jessedhillon 13y ago
I think you and I must not agree on what the word "serious" means.