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

**ahagotyou** · 01-21-2007, 05:23 AM

I agree that is what it says if translated into English but since Calder in 1798, the courts have never interpreted it differently than what was said in that case.

The binding SCOTUS decision is not irrelevant. Whether you or I agree or disagree with the decision, it's the only opinion that counts on the meaning of the term and it's been the only meaning applied in the US since the beginning of the nation.

Fighting that interpretation is like running full speed into a brick wall. To change that understanding at this juncture, a constitutional amendment would be needed to undo something so solidly entrenched as that understanding.

It isn't about whether we agree or disagree with the decision. How do you figure that it's even relevant to this thread?

The relevant thing is, you are fallaciously comming to a negative conclusion from affirmative premisses.

Basically your argument is akin to saying that since SCOTUS said that all horses are mammals... that necessarily means that dogs are not mammals.

Face it,the term "no law ex post facto law" means exaclty that... no ex post facto law. Qualifiers are simply irrelevant in this context.

01-21-2007, 05:23 AM	#15
ahagotyou Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 571 Senior Member	I agree that is what it says if translated into English but since Calder in 1798, the courts have never interpreted it differently than what was said in that case. The binding SCOTUS decision is not irrelevant. Whether you or I agree or disagree with the decision, it's the only opinion that counts on the meaning of the term and it's been the only meaning applied in the US since the beginning of the nation. Fighting that interpretation is like running full speed into a brick wall. To change that understanding at this juncture, a constitutional amendment would be needed to undo something so solidly entrenched as that understanding. It isn't about whether we agree or disagree with the decision. How do you figure that it's even relevant to this thread? The relevant thing is, you are fallaciously comming to a negative conclusion from affirmative premisses. Basically your argument is akin to saying that since SCOTUS said that all horses are mammals... that necessarily means that dogs are not mammals. Face it,the term "no law ex post facto law" means exaclty that... no ex post facto law. Qualifiers are simply irrelevant in this context.
	Quote