Supreme Court to apply "ex post facto"

Discussion in 'Computer Support' started by richard, Oct 13, 2009.

  1. richard

    richard Guest

    http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/10/13/scotus.sex.trafficking/index.html?eref=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.
     
    richard, Oct 13, 2009
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. richard

    D Pigeon Guest

    On Tue, 13 Oct 2009 14:46:27 -0700, Evan Platt wrote:

    > On Tue, 13 Oct 2009 14:31:57 -0700, richard <>
    > wrote:
    >
    >>http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/10/13/scotus.sex.trafficking/index.html?eref=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.
     
    D Pigeon, Oct 13, 2009
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. richard

    Mara Guest

    On Tue, 13 Oct 2009 15:47:37 -0700, D Pigeon <> 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."
     
    Mara, Oct 14, 2009
    #3
  4. richard

    NormanM Guest

    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
     
    NormanM, Oct 14, 2009
    #4
    1. Advertisements

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Brian
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    479
    The Poster Formerly Known as Kline Sphere
    Aug 10, 2004
  2. Stylewriter

    printing post facto ?

    Stylewriter, Nov 18, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    13
    Views:
    606
    Stylewriter
    Nov 19, 2003
  3. techie
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    381
    techie
    Dec 9, 2003
  4. thingy
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    815
    thingy
    Nov 12, 2007
  5. Bucky Breeder

    ! USA Supreme Court Rules 'OK to Shoot Liberals' !

    Bucky Breeder, Jun 22, 2010, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    483
    Bucky Breeder
    Jun 22, 2010
Loading...

Share This Page