NOTES ON THE CONSTITUTION

Fiedor Report On the News #304 ^ | 3-2-03 | Doug Fiedor

[forest]

All retroactive laws are unconstitutional. Supposedly, we are protected against such heavy-handed political impositions. Our social compact with government, the United States Constitution, forbids such actions by government. That is, if We the People are willing to enforce the issue.

First, we should ask our Representatives and Senators if they intend to honor their oath of office. You know, the one where they swear to uphold, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States. . . .

Then, ask your Member of Congress to read Article I, Section 9, paragraph 3 of the Constitution, which states: "No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Laws shall be passed." This sentence should be pretty clear -- even to a Member of Congress or a Congressional aide -- since the operative word here is "No." The other operative words of interest to us are the Latin words "ex post facto" -- which is legalese for criminalizing an innocent action and then, retroactively, punishing it as a crime.

In the Federalist Papers (#44) James Madison wrote: "Bills of attainder, ex post facto laws, and laws impairing the obligation of contracts, are contrary to the first principles of the social compact and to every principle of sound legislation."

Alexander Hamilton expanded on that thought in Federalist #84 when he wrote: "The creation of crimes after the commission of the fact, or, in other words, the subjecting of men to punishment for things which, when they were done, were breaches of no law, and the practice of arbitrary imprisonments, have been, in all ages, the favorite and most formidable instruments of tyranny."

In other words, according to Madison, passing a retroactive law violates every principle of sound legislation, and he expected American legislators to know better. Hamilton, however, was a little more blunt. "Tyranny," he calls it.

Even before the Federalist papers, Sir William Blackstone, in his "Commentaries on the Law," was quite clear in his opinion of ex post facto laws: "These are wholly unreasonable," he began the section. Blackstone then contends that all laws should be passed, and the people notified, well in advance of their effective date.

During the Constitutional Convention, James Wilson, a delegate from Pennsylvania, feared that even "to put the ex post facto provision in the Constitution might proclaim that we are ignorant of the first principles of Legislation, or are constituting a Government which will be so." William Samuel Johnson, a delegate from Connecticut, thought the clause "unnecessary, and implying an improper suspicion of the National Legislature." They too thought American legislators would know better. Apparently, though, they didn't anticipate the type of politicians we have running the government in Washington today.

Some lawyers say the ex post facto provision only applies to criminal law. The United States Supreme Court, however, said otherwise. The ex post facto provision applies to any law imposing a penalty.

Therefore, it doesn't matter if we're talking about a tax package, environmental laws, rules and regulations, or gun laws. If the law, rule or regulation is retroactive it is, as James Madison instructs "contrary to the first principles of the social compact and to every principle of sound legislation."

Or, it is, as Alexander Hamilton puts it: "Tyranny."

 

 END

[forest]

All retroactive laws are unconstitutional.

Our Congress Critters should honor their oath of office.

In other words, according to Madison, passing a retroactive law violates every principle of sound legislation, and he expected American legislators to know better. Hamilton, however, was a little more blunt. "Tyranny," he calls it.

Some lawyers say the ex post facto provision only applies to criminal law. The United States Supreme Court, however, said otherwise. The ex post facto provision applies to any law imposing a penalty.

[1ofmanyfree]

Is there a list containing a few of the more onerous ex- post-facto laws as examples? As a reference point of sorts. I am sure it would be useful for this discussion.

I recall the past administration proposing something like this but cannot find a reference. 1~

[lawdog]

Try the Lautenberg (?) Bill re: domestic violence "gun control". I think that they may have amended it but I believe one case is working it's way thru the courts.

[itsahoot]

I recall the past administration proposing something like this but cannot find a reference. 1~

Mostly Tax laws, like taxing the dead after they had been dead 6 months, under Clinton.

[x]

It's true, but without specifics the article is weak. It also doesn't look like the provision applies to judicial decisions in the same way. If I understand correctly, you may act under a particular understanding of common or statute law that may be changed by subsequent judicial findings and be liable under that new interpretation.