On 10/7/2014 6:43 PM, steve harley wrote:
on 2014-10-03 17:42 P.J. Alling wrote
On 9/29/2014 9:08 PM, steve harley wrote:
on 2014-09-28 20:16 P.J. Alling wrote
It was widely believed
that the law would not stand, as the constitution strictly forbids
Ex Post
Facto legislation.
… for criminal law only
The Constitution makes no such distinction. It is simply mentioned in
the
same sentence as the prohibition on bills of Attender. Article 1,
Section
9. Which is consists of limitations on the powers of Congress.
i can see why you might interpret it that way, however the Supreme
Court's interpretation (Calder v. Bull, 1789) is the one that
continues to hold
Yes, as if the Supreme Court was infallible, you could ask Dred Scott
his opinion. Laws last only as long as they are seen as fair.
--
I don't want to achieve immortality through my work; I want to achieve
immortality through not dying.
-- Woody Allen
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
[email protected]
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow
the directions.
