Law orders removal of Arlington remains

This is called an "ex post facto" law - It changes the legal consequences of an act committed before the law was passed.

When he was honorably discharged, his valid contract stated that he was entitled to death benefits, part of which covered his burial wishes.

To now say that federal law prohibits that and attaches his actions in society outside of the military after his discharge is ex post facto and therefore, unconstitutional.

Just another in a long line of "feelgood" laws that serve no purpose.

Regards,

Col Sanders

Col...

I would tend to agree with you in a very strict, narrow and technical legal sense that this is ex post facto.

However, since the vet-convict is dead, he has NO legal standing.

I would think that the VA and govt. lawyers would use this same kind of defense to justify the government's removal of his remains from Arlington.

I think that because he is dead, there is no "ex post facto" harm to the deceased.

You are right. This is just another "feelgood" law, but as a Navy veteran, I must confess that it does make me "feel good" too. I am "guilty" as charged when it comes to this issue.

Regardless of the man's service in Vietnam, Arlington is too good a place to bury the remains of a convicted murderer who died in prison.

I would tend to agree with you in a very strict, narrow and technical legal sense that this is ex post facto.

Isn't "strict, narrow, and technical" the only sense when it comes to law and the Constitution? Or is it a "living and breathing" document that we can tweak just a bit around the edges until we feel better about it? Should we put people in jail for almost breaking the law as well?

However, since the vet-convict is dead, he has NO legal standing.

It's not just the vet, but his family who is guaranteed the benefit. His family gets to bury him in a military cemetery with honors and at government expense. That's part of the contract. And if you think contracts die just because of death, check out your mortgage. Even if you die, your heirs are bound by the contract if they wish to keep the house. This has to cut both ways. If you die and there exists a half-finished pre-paid contract for building a house, the builder doesn't get to keep the money and walk away...He has to finish the house. In this case, this vet's contract was paid in full no matter what happened after his contract was up.

I'm also a Navy vet, but this seems like a very clear cut case of ex post facto bullshit. If they want to change it for future contracts, then that's fine. But to anyone who already has a contract, they're bound by the terms under which it was signed.

Regards,

Col Sanders

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.