Posted on 06/01/2007 10:26:22 PM PDT by Natural Law
There is an old maxim that who ever controls the language controls the argument. The politicos in Washington are desperately attempting to define the illegal immigration issue as immigration reform. Immigration law does not need reformation, it needs enforcement. If the current immigration laws were enforced we would not have 11+ million illegals in the US today.
What the White House and its current allies of expediency are attempting to do is to make already committed crimes not be crimes. In law this is called ex post facto, which is Latin for "from a thing done afterward." Two clauses in the US Constitution prohibit ex post facto laws. Article 1, Section 9 limits the federal government; “No bill of attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.” Article 1, Section 10 places similar restrictions on the states.
If any new laws are needed they ones that would compel the federal agencies to act to enforce the existing laws.
Immigration doesn’t need reforming - it needs enforcing!
I recall when I lived on the summit of Paradise Hills in San Diego in the mid to late 70’s there were 24 /7 choppers running down illegals coming up through our draw. The good ol’ days.
This bill is nothing but companies wanting cheap labor with Bush all too happy to accomodate them. Problem is he’s giving up our sovereignty and security at the same time 18 year old guys are fighting and dying for those very things.
Responding to my last post...
It just seems so inconsistent that Bush wants this no security Amnesty bill passed. Does he really think that these illegals will vote Republican even as they gobble up free socialist services like medical cards and welfare?
Your absolutely right on, but it just needs re-inforcing. What the heck happened and when exactly did that long standing inforcment cease? Who called it quits and why?
I like the way you put that. You know, it’s like that TB fellow. He did something really stupid and selfish, and now everyone on the internet can sit here and pick his story apart. It used to be that you had a trial of 12 or so peers, and now you have the potential for a billion people to scrutinize every word.
This is a good argument. Ex post facto. I’ll remember that.
Follow el dinero.
It’s a good argument — that making a crime not a crime is an ex post facto law. The problem is that I don’t think it flies legally. Applied that way you could not have ended prohibition. I think (law school and a few years of practice is my background, no longer practicing) that ex post facto only applies when you try to punish someone for something they did in the past that was legal when they did it. I don’t think it applies when you fail to punish someone for the law they broke in the past and then you change the law to make what they did legal. Unfortunately for us on the immigration issue. I think ex post facto actually cuts the other way — once the law is passed legalizing the illegals you can’t kick them out after. Rights attach at that point . . .
Bingo
It was a deliberate scam on us all.
Why would Bush dig his heels in to the extent that he is now joepardizing the support for the War on Terror. Why do I feel that there in more to this than what is already visible? This is a very perplexing situation.
Whatever.
As I see it, he is keeping the process moving. A proposed bill in the senate is a beginning. If people keep discussing and debating as it moves through the house and the senate, it will get better or it will die. He’s for better.
I apoplogize if my post seemed to insult you. I just put in my 2 cents worth at the end of the thread. Nothing personal.
“It will be of little avail to the people that the laws are made by men of their own choice, if the laws be so voluminous that they cannot be read, or so incoherent that they cannot be understood; if they be repealed or revised before they are promulgated, or undergo such incessant changes that no man who knows what the law is today can guess what is will be tomorrow.”
— James Madison, Federalist no. 62, February 27, 1788
Since this man basically wrote the constitution, I would say that it says what it means and means what it says.
ex post facto means not retroactive law, period. it makes no value judgement about whether an act was legal or illegal to begin with. to argue otherwise is sophistry.
therefore, since the current aliens are illegal now, congress is constitutionally prohibited from making any law to make them legal. this is simple. unfortunately, legal scholars will come up with a multitude of ways to circumvent this obvious and straightforward fact. even worse, people will fail to stand up and demand that our government adhere to the constitution.
there is a constitutional remedy. the president can pardon all aliens right now.
your argument about prohibition is nonsensical. congress can pass prohibition, they just can’t retroactively punish you.
A law may have an ex post facto effect without being technically ex post facto. For example, when a law repeals a previous law, the repealed legislation no longer applies to the situations it once did, even if such situations arose before the law was repealed. The principle of prohibiting the continued application of these kinds of laws is also known as Nullum crimen, nulla poena sine praevia lege poenali.
(I’ve fallen to going to Wikipedia for my legal advice!)
From Lectlaw:
EX POST FACTO CLAUSE - A misnomer in that actually two Constitutional clauses are involved. The U.S. Constitution’s Article 1 Section 9, C.3 states: ‘No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed,’ and Section 10 says: ‘No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law. . . .’
The ‘words and the intent’ of the Ex Post Facto Clause encompass ‘[e]very law that changes the punishment, and inflicts a greater punishment, than the law annexed to the crime, when committed.’ Calder v. Bull, 3 U.S. (1 Dall.) 386, 390 (1798) (opinion of Chase, J.).
An ex post facto law is a law passed after the occurrence of an event or action which retrospectively changes the legal consequences of the event or action.
It needs a Mexipult
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.