DiscussWorldIssues - Socio-Economic Religion and Political Uncensored Debate - View Single Post

**gkruCRi1** · 01-20-2007, 11:54 PM

Yeah, that Article one of the US constitution thingy is just sooooo dang "annoying".[/sarcasm]

The ex post facto provision, if that is what you are referring, applies only to criminal law, and not to any collateral civil consequences such as losing an employment pension stemming from the same criminal conduct. Other provisions might be applicable, though, depending on how the pensions are authorised and structured (takings clause, contact clause, e.g.) if the law were made retroactive. I wasn't arguing for a retroactive application anyway. What I found annoying is that a policy was not put in place long ago to deny pensions to those who get convicted for abusing their trusts. I don't think the Neys, Cunninghams, Traficants, Rostenkowskis, and Jeffersons (if he gets convicted) deserve pensions. Do you think corrupt officials should get a taxpayer funded-pension for a 'job well done'?

01-20-2007, 11:54 PM	#8
gkruCRi1 Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 505 Senior Member	Yeah, that Article one of the US constitution thingy is just sooooo dang "annoying".[/sarcasm] The ex post facto provision, if that is what you are referring, applies only to criminal law, and not to any collateral civil consequences such as losing an employment pension stemming from the same criminal conduct. Other provisions might be applicable, though, depending on how the pensions are authorised and structured (takings clause, contact clause, e.g.) if the law were made retroactive. I wasn't arguing for a retroactive application anyway. What I found annoying is that a policy was not put in place long ago to deny pensions to those who get convicted for abusing their trusts. I don't think the Neys, Cunninghams, Traficants, Rostenkowskis, and Jeffersons (if he gets convicted) deserve pensions. Do you think corrupt officials should get a taxpayer funded-pension for a 'job well done'?
	Quote