VA-HIST Archives

Discussion of research and writing about Virginia history

VA-HIST@LISTLVA.LIB.VA.US

Options: Use Forum View

Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
Debra Jackson/Harold Forsythe <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Discussion of research and writing about Virginia history <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Sat, 24 Feb 2007 12:13:33 -0500
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (60 lines)
The simple answer to Mr. Adams' question is that the ex post facto provision 
applies only to criminal, not civil law.  Thus, the government cannot impose 
a longer prison sentence ex post facto, but it can raise (and lower) taxes 
ex post facto.

Harold S. Forsythe
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "John Philip Adams" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Friday, February 23, 2007 11:30 PM
Subject: Re: The Constitution


> SAME ARTICLE next line down.
> "No bill of attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed."
> Why isn't everyone paying attention to this, especially as it relates to 
> so
> many Tax matters.
> JPAdams
>
> Article One, Section Nine, The United States Constitution:
>
> "The privilege of the writ of Habeus Corpus shall not be
> suspended, unless when in cases of Rebellion or Invasion the
> public safety shall require it."
>
> As a number of folks have noted earlier, Lincoln had adequate
> constitutional cause and mandate to suspend the writ, and the
> courts upheld his action.  The issue in Ex Parte Milligan had
> nothing to do with Habeus Corpus, but rather with whether or
> not a military court could legitimately try Milligan, when
> there was a functioning civil court available to the
> government.  In the Milligan decision the Court went out of
> its way to affirm the legitimate right of the President to
> suspend the writ, and to clarify that in its decision, the
> Court had no intention to suggest that Lincoln had behaved
> improperly in doing so.  Lincoln could quite legitmately
> detain Milligan indefinitley without bringing him to
> trial--but if Lincoln's government *did* choose to bring him
> to trial, they had to do so in a civilian court, if a
> functioning civilian court was available to them.
>
> The case is widely available, and anyone inclinded to disagree
> with my interpretation above should first read it for
> themselves.  I am working from the redacted version in
> Hammond, Hardwick, and Lubert, CLASSICS OF AMERICAN POLITICAL
> AND CONSTITUTIONAL THOUGHT, (Hackett Press, 2007), Volume One,
> p. 1168.  You can find the paragraphs relevant to Habeus
> Corpus on the left hand column of that page.
>
> Not that I am going to plug my own work, or anything :)
>
> at http://listlva.lib.va.us/archives/va-hist.html
>
> To subscribe, change options, or unsubscribe, please see the instructions
> at http://listlva.lib.va.us/archives/va-hist.html 

To subscribe, change options, or unsubscribe, please see the instructions
at http://listlva.lib.va.us/archives/va-hist.html

ATOM RSS1 RSS2


LISTLVA.LIB.VA.US