September 2, 200818 yr No lawyer will touch it, but here is an interesting article. Wikipedia talks about it as well. What Chin refers to is the simple question of ex post facto legislation. Courts around the country have upheld such legislation in many circumstances, particularly when it benefits, rather than punishes, the recipient of the law. It really is a non-issue.
September 2, 200818 yr What Chin refers to is the simple question of ex post facto legislation. Courts around the country have upheld such legislation in many circumstances, particularly when it benefits, rather than punishes, the recipient of the law. It really is a non-issue. So, if someone did decide to push the issue, he would receive the benefits of the law, even though it was after his birth?
September 2, 200818 yr So, if someone did decide to push the issue, he would receive the benefits of the law, even though it was after his birth? The law itself gave retroactive applicability to 32 years before his birth. Its no different than a law that, lets say, gives Gulf War veterans increased pension benefits even though the law was passed 9 years after the war ended. Or, in more recent times, gives phone companies retroactive protection and immunity from civil lawsuits over wiretaps permitted 5-7 years before the passage of the law. The list goes on and on. Ex post facto can be used in certain circumstances to confer benefit, but cannot be used to punish. For instance, if growing marijuana was legal in 1950 (it was), you cannot be punished now under the new cultivation laws for something that was legal that you did in 1950.
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.