Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > Computer Support > Supreme Court to apply "ex post facto"

Reply
Thread Tools

Supreme Court to apply "ex post facto"

 
 
richard
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-13-2009
http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/10/13/...ef=igoogle_cnn


The supreme court of the united states (scotus) is scheduled to hear
arguments for a case that a lower court over ruled on.
The federal government took a man to trial based upon a law that was not
active at the time of his alleged crime.
Which is why the appeals court over ruled the conviction.
That, is what is known as "Ex Post Facto".
IOW, you can not be convicted of a crime based upon a law which did not
exist at the time of the crime.

It would appear then, that scotus, if they over rule the lower court, will
then make ex post facto a common thing in the area of justice.
So that if the feds want to convict you of something, they write a law in
respect to what you did, then hang you for it.

Isn't this exactly what the Constitution is all about? Protecting the
freedoms enjoyed "BY THE PEOPLE"?

All hell will break loose in our justice system if scotus rules against the
lower court.
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
D Pigeon
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-13-2009
On Tue, 13 Oct 2009 14:46:27 -0700, Evan Platt wrote:

> On Tue, 13 Oct 2009 14:31:57 -0700, richard <(E-Mail Removed)>
> wrote:
>
>>http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/10/13/...ef=igoogle_cnn
>>
>>
>>The supreme court of the united states (scotus) is scheduled to hear
>>arguments for a case that a lower court over ruled on.
>>The federal government took a man to trial based upon a law that was not
>>active at the time of his alleged crime.
>>Which is why the appeals court over ruled the conviction.
>>That, is what is known as "Ex Post Facto".
>>IOW, you can not be convicted of a crime based upon a law which did not
>>exist at the time of the crime.

>
> It's unfortunate too. And it's usually some sick fsck that brings
> about laws. I mean, it's great to hear "Wow. There isn't a law for
> that. We better make one", but it's fscked up when it's "Gee, we have
> to let this guy go free, because, technically, there is no law
> preventing him from having sex with a dead sheep in front of a church.
> We need to write a law to make it illegal."
>
> There are exceptions of Ex Post Facto - The Adam Walsh Child
> Protection and Safety Act comes to mind.


That's not really an example of ex post facto. epf requires that the person
be charged under the new law although the alleged crime was committed
before the law became effective.

Creating new requirements for registration retroactive is legal.
As that has nothing to do with the individual case at hand.

For instance, a law can be passed requiring you to return your old driver's
license and replace it with a new one.

But let's say you did something that a cop didn't like. He finds there is
no law covering that. Months later the law becomes effective. He charges
you with the crime. That is ex post facto. It is not allowed.

See article 1 sections 9 and 10 of the us constitution.
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Mara
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-14-2009

On Tue, 13 Oct 2009 15:47:37 -0700, D Pigeon <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

<snip>

>For instance, a law can be passed requiring you to return your old driver's
>license and replace it with a new one.
>
>But let's say you did something that a cop didn't like. He finds there is
>no law covering that. Months later the law becomes effective. He charges
>you with the crime. That is ex post facto. It is not allowed.
>
>See article 1 sections 9 and 10 of the us constitution.


Since when has the US gummint paid any attention to what the Constitution
requires?

--
<wilhelm> "Idiot prices fell today with the expected announcement
from the Fed that there would be no shortage of idiots for the
foreseeable future."
 
Reply With Quote
 
NormanM
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-14-2009
On Tue, 13 Oct 2009 19:33:03 -0500, Mara wrote:

> Since when has the US gummint paid any attention to what the Constitution
> requires?


Not since, at least, the passage of the "Alien and Sedition Acts". (A suite
of four bills enacted over the summer of 1798.) While the laws either
expired by, or repealed by 1802, that was the start of a long, downhill
trend WRT the U.S. Congress honoring the spirit of the U.S. Constitution.

--
Norman
~Oh Lord, why have you come
~To Konnyu, with the Lion and the Drum
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
! USA Supreme Court Rules 'OK to Shoot Liberals' ! Bucky Breeder Computer Support 3 06-22-2010 05:54 PM
Supreme Commander on dual core AMD cpu....have I missed something? thingy NZ Computing 4 11-12-2007 08:17 PM
Supreme Court Ruling on "Price Fixing" Tina Peters HTML 7 06-30-2007 09:29 AM
[Media] Digital confusion reigns supreme: study Brian MCSE 5 08-10-2004 07:04 AM
Microsoft: "We'll take the Astroturf Supreme, please" techie NZ Computing 0 12-09-2003 12:59 AM



Advertisments