[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: "Peter D. Junger" <junger(at)samsara.law.cwru.edu>
- Date: Fri, 11 Oct 2002 09:14:31 -0400
- In-reply-to: Your message of "10 Oct 2002 17:40:52 PDT." <1034296852.10137.2.camel@ettin.lumbercartel.com>
- Reply-to: dvd-discuss(at)cyber.law.harvard.edu
- Sender: owner-dvd-discuss(at)cyber.law.harvard.edu
"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.
--
Peter D. Junger--Case Western Reserve University Law School--Cleveland, OH
EMAIL: junger@samsara.law.cwru.edu URL: http://samsara.law.cwru.edu
NOTE: junger@pdj2-ra.f-remote.cwru.edu no longer exists