6 ms·

but OP's concerns don't matter. The Constitution's concerns matter. "Battery" is a crime. If the state decides that "smacking someone's back" meets the definit

by gohrt 11y ago

but OP's concerns don't matter. The Constitution's concerns matter. "Battery" is a crime. If the state decides that "smacking someone's back" meets the definition of battery, they can prosecute people who committed that act before the clarification, as long as a judge finds their interpretation to be consistent with the wording of the law. Law is not computer code that fully specifies a simulation in advance.

deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
mahyarm 11y ago
So rule decider type B (judges) can effectively create retroactive laws/policies. An interpretation that is enforced is as good as a law.
- ForHackernews 11y ago
  Yes, obviously. How did you think courts worked?
tanderson92 11y ago
I would set up the situation more like the state passing a law saying that an agency, call it the Battery Protection Agency (BPA), can decide what constitutes battery. Then the BPA decides in 2015 that verbal abuse and insults constitutes battery, and prosecutors proceed to arrest people for insults going back 5 years before the BPA's 2015 decision. The parallels to the IRS case should be obvious, and the above hypothetical scenario is very much what the constitution was meant to protect against.
- dragonwriter 11y ago
  > The parallels to the IRS case should be obvious Please point the specific provision(s) of law parallel to the one in your hypothetical, both as to the unlimited discretion and as to the discretion to decide what constitutes criminal punishment. Because I don't think the parallels are at all obvious.
  - tanderson92 11y ago
    Exactly, my hypothetical would universally not be allowed and is forbidden (esp. by the nondelegation doctrine). The point is that the two situations are very similar in spirit. I never said the discretion was unlimited; rather, I think that any retroactive decision in guidance/policy/interpretation is prohibited by the constitution. The words are just semantics. IRS tax avoidance constitutes criminal punishment. Thanks for the downvotes, everyone.
    - dragonwriter 11y ago
      > The point is that the two situations are very similar in spirit. You keep asserting that, but you have failed to even begin to argue that. > rather, I think that any retroactive decision in guidance/policy/interpretation is prohibited by the constitution. You are welcome to think that, however, that's not consistent with the history of the use "ex post facto law", which was a legal term of art already in existence at the time the Constitution was written, and whose scope of meaning in the Constitution since, practically, the ink was still wet on the Constitution. > IRS tax avoidance constitutes criminal punishment. No, tax avoidance (which is structuring activities in awareness of the law so as not to incur tax liability) isn't something that is subject to criminal punishment; it is perfectly legal. Nonpayment of tax isn't legal, but isn't generally criminal either. Tax evasion is criminal, but involves things like false representation to avoid tax liability being correctly assessed. Following the then-current IRS guidance isn't evasion, and doesn't retroactively become evasion when the guidance changes, even though the change in guidance may change the IRS's computation of tax due.
      - tanderson92 11y ago
        I believe a reasonable person wills see the situations' similarity. I am not attempting to convince you since you are not interested. There seems to be no good word for nonpayment of tax; tax evasion you take issue with elsewhere, tax avoidance is not the correct word I agree, but I don't know what word you really would like. One thing is very clear: the IRS will take what it feels is due ('legally', or retroactively legal) and is willing to use the criminal justice system to do so. I and any freedom-loving American see this as a gross violation of the constitution.

by gohrt 11y ago

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]

mahyarm 11y ago

So rule decider type B (judges) can effectively create retroactive laws/policies. An interpretation that is enforced is as good as a law.

ForHackernews 11y ago
Yes, obviously. How did you think courts worked?

tanderson92 11y ago

I would set up the situation more like the state passing a law saying that an agency, call it the Battery Protection Agency (BPA), can decide what constitutes battery. Then the BPA decides in 2015 that verbal abuse and insults constitutes battery, and prosecutors proceed to arrest people for insults going back 5 years before the BPA's 2015 decision. The parallels to the IRS case should be obvious, and the above hypothetical scenario is very much what the constitution was meant to protect against.

dragonwriter 11y ago
> The parallels to the IRS case should be obvious Please point the specific provision(s) of law parallel to the one in your hypothetical, both as to the unlimited discretion and as to the discretion to decide what constitutes criminal punishment. Because I don't think the parallels are at all obvious.
- tanderson92 11y ago
  Exactly, my hypothetical would universally not be allowed and is forbidden (esp. by the nondelegation doctrine). The point is that the two situations are very similar in spirit. I never said the discretion was unlimited; rather, I think that any retroactive decision in guidance/policy/interpretation is prohibited by the constitution. The words are just semantics. IRS tax avoidance constitutes criminal punishment. Thanks for the downvotes, everyone.
  - dragonwriter 11y ago
    > The point is that the two situations are very similar in spirit. You keep asserting that, but you have failed to even begin to argue that. > rather, I think that any retroactive decision in guidance/policy/interpretation is prohibited by the constitution. You are welcome to think that, however, that's not consistent with the history of the use "ex post facto law", which was a legal term of art already in existence at the time the Constitution was written, and whose scope of meaning in the Constitution since, practically, the ink was still wet on the Constitution. > IRS tax avoidance constitutes criminal punishment. No, tax avoidance (which is structuring activities in awareness of the law so as not to incur tax liability) isn't something that is subject to criminal punishment; it is perfectly legal. Nonpayment of tax isn't legal, but isn't generally criminal either. Tax evasion is criminal, but involves things like false representation to avoid tax liability being correctly assessed. Following the then-current IRS guidance isn't evasion, and doesn't retroactively become evasion when the guidance changes, even though the change in guidance may change the IRS's computation of tax due.
    - tanderson92 11y ago
      I believe a reasonable person wills see the situations' similarity. I am not attempting to convince you since you are not interested. There seems to be no good word for nonpayment of tax; tax evasion you take issue with elsewhere, tax avoidance is not the correct word I agree, but I don't know what word you really would like. One thing is very clear: the IRS will take what it feels is due ('legally', or retroactively legal) and is willing to use the criminal justice system to do so. I and any freedom-loving American see this as a gross violation of the constitution.