Quote:
Originally posted by asaris
I'm with the Supreme Court on this one. The idea that a legislature can arbitrarily decide when to bring some one to trial, as Breyer writes, "risks both arbitrary and potentially vindicate legislation." I'd want to read the whole decision to be sure, but I suspect it only applies to those cases which occured before the law was passed -- that's what ex post facto means.
|
Exactly. Seperate in your mind the crime, however heinious and what the constitution rightly allows. No Laws should be able to be passed retroactively, talk about your tools for fascism.
Yah these people are scumbags but previous to 1994 they had unfortunelty got away with it.
Do you really want the state to retroactively be able to change laws and penalties? Got any problem with the state deceiding to change the penalty for speeding to $1000 and 6 month licence suspension? This is exactly the issue at stake.
--
"Good citizens - and good friends - oppose bad policies. By telling you the truth, they strive to save you from folly. They may be mistaken, but they are not your enemies. "