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