RE: [dvd-discuss] O'Connor quoted at USA Today from Eldred oral argument

[Richard Hartman <hartman(at)onetouch.com>]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Peter D. Junger [mailto:junger@samsara.law.cwru.edu]
> Sent: Friday, October 11, 2002 6:15 AM
> To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu
> Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] O'Connor quoted at USA Today from 
> Eldred oral
> argument 
> 
> 
> "D. C. Sessions" writes:
> 
> : On Thu, 2002-10-10 at 14:55, 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."
> : 
> : That just prevents Congress from passing a law making something
> : illegal after the fact, e.g. declaring the speed limit to be
> : 35 mph after you've already gone by at 45, then socking you
> : for speeding.
> : 
> : It doesn't apply to making future actions (e.g. publication
> : of _The_Jungle_Book_ less than 70 years after Kipling's death)
> : illegal.
> 
> That is correct, but only because in CALDER v. BULL, 3 U.S. 38
> (1798) the Supreme Court held that the ``ex post facto'' clause
> only applies to penal (which pretty much means ``criminal'') 
> cases.
> 

What were the grounds cited for this decision?

-- 
-Richard M. Hartman
hartman@onetouch.com

186,000 mi/sec: not just a good idea, it's the LAW!