The context of placing ex post facto with bills of attainder provides the
clue. Bills of attainder are, I think, always criminal bills, not civil
bills. I cannot cite case law showing exactly when the courts ruled on this
matter.
Harold S. Forsythe
----- Original Message -----
From: "John Philip Adams" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Saturday, February 24, 2007 1:50 PM
Subject: Re: The Constitution
> Thank you. I was under the impression that "ex post facto' covered both
> Civil and Criminal. In the Constitution, it did not so specify criminal
> law.
>
> John Philip Adams
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Discussion of research and writing about Virginia history
> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Debra Jackson/Harold
> Forsythe
> Sent: Saturday, February 24, 2007 11:14 AM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: The Constitution
>
> 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
>
> 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
|
