[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [dvd-discuss] O'Connor quoted at USA Today from Eldred oral argument
- To: dvd-discuss(at)cyber.law.harvard.edu
- Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] O'Connor quoted at USA Today from Eldred oral argument
- From: Timothy Phillips <hrothgar(at)telepath.com>
- Date: Thu, 10 Oct 2002 21:09:09 -0700
- In-reply-to: <E06ADA0073926048AD304115DD8AB6BC01239877@mail.onetouch.com>
- Reply-to: dvd-discuss(at)cyber.law.harvard.edu
- Sender: owner-dvd-discuss(at)cyber.law.harvard.edu
On Thursday, October 10, 2002, at 02:55 PM, Richard Hartman wrote:
>
> Make _what_ call?? There is no call to
> be made! The Constitution expressly
> forbids retroactive legislation in
> Section 9, paragraph 3: "No bill of
> attainder or ex post facto Law
> shall be passed."
> Where is Congress granted the power to
> make a "call" about retroactivity?
Technically, the prohibition against ex-post facto laws applies only to
criminal laws.
Precisely this question came up during the controversy over the Evans
patent.
Thomas Jefferson, who had signed "An Act for the Relief of Oliver
Evans", was
annoyed when the courts interpreted the law retroactively against people
who
had set up Evans's invention during the time between the judicial
invalidation
of Evans's first patent and the issuing of the new one. He thought that
the
spirit of the principle against ex post facto laws was applicable to the
case,
but recognized that the Constitutional prohibition applied only to
criminal laws:
I did not expect the retrospection which has been
given to the reviving law...
The sentiment that ex post facto laws are against
natural right, is so strong in the United States, that
few, if any, of the State constitutions have failed to
proscribe them. The federal constitution indeed
interdicts them in criminal cases only; but they are
equally unjust in civil as in criminal cases, and the
omission of a caution which would have been right,
does not justify the doing what is wrong. Nor ought
it to be presumed that the legislature meant to use
a phrase in an unjustifiable sense, if by rules of
construction it can be ever strained to what is just.
...Laws, moreover, abridging the natural right of
the citizen, should be restrained by rigorous con-
struction within their narrowest limits.
--Thomas Jefferson, Letter to Isaac McPherson, August 13th, 1813.
Yes, that is the same letter as the one containing his famous "taper"
apothegm.
Tim Phillips
<hrothgar@telepath.com>