 JakCrow
join:2001-12-06
Palo Alto, CA | Unconstitutional law If this passes, it will be an ex post facto law, which means it is making what was an illegal act somehow now legal, thus, it is unconstitutional. |
|
 major marcoRes Firma Mitescere NescitPremium
join:2003-02-13
Stepford, CA | said by JakCrow:If this passes, it will be an ex post facto law, which means it is making what was an illegal act somehow now legal, thus, it is unconstitutional. LMAO. Ex post facto? Not even close, but nice try. What this decision will do is set a precedent that will give a free pass to any entity to whom the President of the United States has told to break the law.
--
The Toll
Tracking Lord Stanley
|
|
EPS
join:2008-02-13
Hingham, MA | reply to JakCrow
Re: Unconstitutional law said by JakCrow:If this passes, it will be an ex post facto law, which means it is making what was an illegal act somehow now legal, thus, it is unconstitutional. Who said anything about illegal? Telco lawsuits are civil proceedings, not criminal.
If it was an "illegal act", then couldn't Bush just issue a pardon? |
|
 pnh102Reptiles Are Cuddly And PrettyPremium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD | reply to JakCrow
said by JakCrow:If this passes, it will be an ex post facto law, which means it is making what was an illegal act somehow now legal, thus, it is unconstitutional. An ex post facto law is the other way around. That's like saying if the government decided to make drugs legal, that'd be unconstitutional.
--
This isn't fair! I was only supposed to hate just ONE presidential candidate! |
|
Reviews:
 ·magicjack.com
3 edits | said by pnh102:said by JakCrow:If this passes, it will be an ex post facto law, which means it is making what was an illegal act somehow now legal, thus, it is unconstitutional. An ex post facto law is the other way around. That's like saying if the government decided to make drugs legal, that'd be unconstitutional. Right. The Framers of the Constitution weren't concerned about benevolent government. They were concerned with what they'd experienced under King George, which included criminalizing past acts.
I can understand people taking the phrase "ex post facto" literally. But, the Framers' use is what defines it. They used the term "free speech" too, but it didn't mean (literally) the right to disturb the peace by playing your radio from your rooftop at 2AM.
Mark |
|
JakCrow
join:2001-12-06
Palo Alto, CA | reply to major marco
said by major marco:said by JakCrow:If this passes, it will be an ex post facto law, which means it is making what was an illegal act somehow now legal, thus, it is unconstitutional. LMAO. Ex post facto? Not even close, but nice try. What this decision will do is set a precedent that will give a free pass to any entity to whom the President of the United States has told to break the law. You realize you just agreed with me. |
|
JakCrow
join:2001-12-06
Palo Alto, CA | reply to pnh102
said by pnh102:said by JakCrow:If this passes, it will be an ex post facto law, which means it is making what was an illegal act somehow now legal, thus, it is unconstitutional. An ex post facto law is the other way around. That's like saying if the government decided to make drugs legal, that'd be unconstitutional. Wrong. |
|
pnh102Reptiles Are Cuddly And PrettyPremium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD | Whatever.
I've quoted to you the definition of an ex post facto law as it has been known for hundreds of years. If you feel like making up a new definition, then by all means, have at it.
--
This isn't fair! I was only supposed to hate just ONE presidential candidate! |
|
JakCrow
join:2001-12-06
Palo Alto, CA | said by pnh102:Whatever. I've quoted to you the definition of an ex post facto law as it has been known for hundreds of years. If you feel like making up a new definition, then by all means, have at it. No new definition needed. Your application is simply not valid. |
|
pnh102Reptiles Are Cuddly And PrettyPremium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD | said by JakCrow:No new definition needed. Your application is simply not valid. Well, then your existing definition is still wrong. An ex post facto law will always and solely refer to the criminalization of a previously legal activity and not to the legalization of a previously criminal activity.
--
This isn't fair! I was only supposed to hate just ONE presidential candidate! |
|
JakCrow
join:2001-12-06
Palo Alto, CA | said by pnh102:said by JakCrow:No new definition needed. Your application is simply not valid. Well, then your existing definition is still wrong. An ex post facto law will always and solely refer to the criminalization of a previously legal activity and not to the legalization of a previously criminal activity. Also incorrect. ex post facto also applies to the reverse, making illegal activity retroactively legal, i.e. an amnesty law, which this clearly is. ex post facto laws are prohibited by Article I, section 9 of the Constitution. So no, it does not always apply as you say. Thanks though. |
|
pnh102Reptiles Are Cuddly And PrettyPremium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD | said by JakCrow:Also incorrect. ex post facto also applies to the reverse, making illegal activity retroactively legal, i.e. an amnesty law, which this clearly is. Uh... most amnesty laws are actually legal. Whether it is tax amnesty, amnesty for illegals, or any other amnesty, amnesty in itself is fully legal, and are not considered ex post facto laws.
Now, depending on the contents of these bills, they could be considered unconstitutional for other reasons.
--
This isn't fair! I was only supposed to hate just ONE presidential candidate! |
|
