Although I am not a constitutional scholar, if I understand Griffin’s argument correctly, he is stating that votes should be invalidated for individuals who registered to vote but did not comply with a regulation enacted after their registration. This argument appears to involve "ex post facto" considerations, which clearly violate the f…
Although I am not a constitutional scholar, if I understand Griffin’s argument correctly, he is stating that votes should be invalidated for individuals who registered to vote but did not comply with a regulation enacted after their registration. This argument appears to involve "ex post facto" considerations, which clearly violate the following constitutional provisions:
• Article I, Section 9, Clause 3: This clause restricts Congress from passing any ex post facto laws. It states, "No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed."
• Article I, Section 10, Clause 1: This clause restricts states from passing any ex post facto laws.
These provisions ensure that laws do not apply retroactively, upholding the principle of fairness and protecting individuals from being punished for an act that was not illegal at the time it was committed. Therefore, if a court attempts to apply a new law or a new interpretation of an existing law to an action that was committed before the new law or interpretation took effect, it should be deemed unconstitutional.
If my reasoning is correct, why is this matter still in the court system at public expense? These funds could be used to assist with the rebuilding efforts in Western NC communities.
Doug, you are right, but I think courts have circumvented this prohibition of ex post facto laws by declaring that the clause applies only to criminal laws (in spite of the clause plainly not being limited to criminal laws). Sometimes judges lie to reach the ends they desire, just like other people sometimes do. That’s a particularly big problem when you get a majority of judges at the highest courts who value the same ends above the rule of law. The Court becomes an advocacy group for political ends instead of an advocacy group for the law.
The check against that happening is the popular vote, but when the popular vote favors the likes of anti-constitutional candidates, the popular vote fails as a check.
Walter, I understand that while the Ex post facto clause specifically pertains to criminal law, certain principles of fairness inherent in this clause may influence judicial considerations in civil cases, although they are not directly governed by it.
In bodied in ex post facto is due process. My training prohibits me from using the word lie in connection with judicial matters. I prefer the word ERROR. It is human to error, but against policy to forgive.
The “Government actions” here retroactively affect fundamental rights unfairly can be contested on due process grounds, even if the matter is not criminal. Voting is acknowledged as a fundamental right essential to democracy.
In Eastern Enterprises v. Apfel, the Supreme Court invalidated a retroactive statute affecting employee health benefits, underscoring the importance of fairness under the Due Process Clause. Similarly, in Montgomery v. Louisiana, the Court examined the retroactive application of a previous ruling, highlighting issues related to retro-activity and due process concerns.
Although I am not a constitutional scholar, if I understand Griffin’s argument correctly, he is stating that votes should be invalidated for individuals who registered to vote but did not comply with a regulation enacted after their registration. This argument appears to involve "ex post facto" considerations, which clearly violate the following constitutional provisions:
• Article I, Section 9, Clause 3: This clause restricts Congress from passing any ex post facto laws. It states, "No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed."
• Article I, Section 10, Clause 1: This clause restricts states from passing any ex post facto laws.
These provisions ensure that laws do not apply retroactively, upholding the principle of fairness and protecting individuals from being punished for an act that was not illegal at the time it was committed. Therefore, if a court attempts to apply a new law or a new interpretation of an existing law to an action that was committed before the new law or interpretation took effect, it should be deemed unconstitutional.
If my reasoning is correct, why is this matter still in the court system at public expense? These funds could be used to assist with the rebuilding efforts in Western NC communities.
Doug, you are right, but I think courts have circumvented this prohibition of ex post facto laws by declaring that the clause applies only to criminal laws (in spite of the clause plainly not being limited to criminal laws). Sometimes judges lie to reach the ends they desire, just like other people sometimes do. That’s a particularly big problem when you get a majority of judges at the highest courts who value the same ends above the rule of law. The Court becomes an advocacy group for political ends instead of an advocacy group for the law.
The check against that happening is the popular vote, but when the popular vote favors the likes of anti-constitutional candidates, the popular vote fails as a check.
Walter, I understand that while the Ex post facto clause specifically pertains to criminal law, certain principles of fairness inherent in this clause may influence judicial considerations in civil cases, although they are not directly governed by it.
In bodied in ex post facto is due process. My training prohibits me from using the word lie in connection with judicial matters. I prefer the word ERROR. It is human to error, but against policy to forgive.
The “Government actions” here retroactively affect fundamental rights unfairly can be contested on due process grounds, even if the matter is not criminal. Voting is acknowledged as a fundamental right essential to democracy.
In Eastern Enterprises v. Apfel, the Supreme Court invalidated a retroactive statute affecting employee health benefits, underscoring the importance of fairness under the Due Process Clause. Similarly, in Montgomery v. Louisiana, the Court examined the retroactive application of a previous ruling, highlighting issues related to retro-activity and due process concerns.