6 ms·

Ex post facto, such as the retroactive changes in CA tax law?

twoodfin 13y ago
Way back to Calder v. Bull in 1798, the U.S. Supreme Court has held that the ex post facto restriction applies to criminal law, not civil matters like taxation. Unusual retroactive taxation could face a due process challenge, but the basic "pass a tax law January 20 that extends backwards to January 1" kind of retroactivity has been upheld several times.
- mindslight 13y ago
  Just because the Supreme Council condones something does not mean that it is consistent with the Constitution (which is itself only relevant because it's USG's purported charter).
  - jessedhillon 13y ago
    Just because the Supreme Council condones something does not mean that it is consistent with the Constitution... Assuming that by "Supreme Council" you mean "Supreme Court" -- that is exactly what it means. There is no way to determine whether or not a thing is in accordance with the Constitution other than to ask a court to decide. It's called The Rule of Law. The other system is called, "internet randos and other people with Ron Paul signs in front of their house decide what the Constitution means." I'll take the first one, thank you.
    - mindslight 13y ago
      So then according to your viewpoint, the text of the Constitution is an opaque blob to anyone besides the SC. Since there's no way for an individual to judge for themselves whether the government's charter is being followed, we must simply accept any decree from the ruling council of nine. This does not sound like "The Rule of Law" to me.
      - mpyne 13y ago
        You can have your own opinion all you like. The one the government will operate by (with certain historical exceptions...) is the Supreme Court's.
        mindslight 13y ago
        Well obviously. The problem comes about when someone wishes to rule out the idea that the SC can make faulty judgments by construction (usually because they wish to keep believing that USG has not failed horribly at its design goals).
        jessedhillon 13y ago
        The problem comes about when someone wishes to rule out the idea that the SC can make faulty judgments by construction... That's what it fucking means to be supreme! There is literally no higher authority unless you want to start shooting people! If you don't like a Supreme Court ruling you can only petition the court to reverse itself or amend the Constitution. By definition, the Supreme Court is the highest legal authority, ergo if they make a "mistaken" ruling (according to whom?) there is no higher legal authority to express that conclusion. So yes, by construction no power exists to override the court, only to amend the Constitution. Faulty judgments are part of the system, the rule of law is the system whereby you agree to operate within this system, even when rulings are made which you personally object to.
        mindslight 13y ago
        Whoosh. You're doing the equivalent of conflating legality and morality - separate your perspective from than of USG. The point isn't that an arbitrary person's opinion of constitutionality directs the actions of USG. It's that there's an independent notion of constitutionality outside the opinions of the Supreme Council. By acknowledging this divergence, we illustrate one aspect USG's corruption (and gain insight to how it occurred) and can weigh whether it is time to reboot the failed system by external means.
alextingle 13y ago
And the various copyright extension bills.

Way back to Calder v. Bull in 1798, the U.S. Supreme Court has held that the ex post facto restriction applies to criminal law, not civil matters like taxation. Unusual retroactive taxation could face a due process challenge, but the basic "pass a tax law January 20 that extends backwards to January 1" kind of retroactivity has been upheld several times.

mindslight 13y ago
Just because the Supreme Council condones something does not mean that it is consistent with the Constitution (which is itself only relevant because it's USG's purported charter).
- jessedhillon 13y ago
  Just because the Supreme Council condones something does not mean that it is consistent with the Constitution... Assuming that by "Supreme Council" you mean "Supreme Court" -- that is exactly what it means. There is no way to determine whether or not a thing is in accordance with the Constitution other than to ask a court to decide. It's called The Rule of Law. The other system is called, "internet randos and other people with Ron Paul signs in front of their house decide what the Constitution means." I'll take the first one, thank you.
  - mindslight 13y ago
    So then according to your viewpoint, the text of the Constitution is an opaque blob to anyone besides the SC. Since there's no way for an individual to judge for themselves whether the government's charter is being followed, we must simply accept any decree from the ruling council of nine. This does not sound like "The Rule of Law" to me.
    - mpyne 13y ago
      You can have your own opinion all you like. The one the government will operate by (with certain historical exceptions...) is the Supreme Court's.
      - mindslight 13y ago
        Well obviously. The problem comes about when someone wishes to rule out the idea that the SC can make faulty judgments by construction (usually because they wish to keep believing that USG has not failed horribly at its design goals).
        jessedhillon 13y ago
        The problem comes about when someone wishes to rule out the idea that the SC can make faulty judgments by construction... That's what it fucking means to be supreme! There is literally no higher authority unless you want to start shooting people! If you don't like a Supreme Court ruling you can only petition the court to reverse itself or amend the Constitution. By definition, the Supreme Court is the highest legal authority, ergo if they make a "mistaken" ruling (according to whom?) there is no higher legal authority to express that conclusion. So yes, by construction no power exists to override the court, only to amend the Constitution. Faulty judgments are part of the system, the rule of law is the system whereby you agree to operate within this system, even when rulings are made which you personally object to.
        mindslight 13y ago
        Whoosh. You're doing the equivalent of conflating legality and morality - separate your perspective from than of USG. The point isn't that an arbitrary person's opinion of constitutionality directs the actions of USG. It's that there's an independent notion of constitutionality outside the opinions of the Supreme Council. By acknowledging this divergence, we illustrate one aspect USG's corruption (and gain insight to how it occurred) and can weigh whether it is time to reboot the failed system by external means.

alextingle 13y ago