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

**ahagotyou** · 01-21-2007, 07:24 AM

The clause only came up when you raised it in reply to a post I wrote.

What I face is that the clause means only what was said in that case and no more because that is the only opinion that counts in our system for what the clause means.

No. There is nothing exclusionary about the decision.

There isn't anything fallacious about that stance. Do you deny that the courts interpret the Constitution and their decisions are binding?

I think you are reading more into it than is there.

There is a big difference between the terms 'retroactive' and 'retrospective'.

Bob Ney made a contract with the govt. that affords him a pension.

Now of course he could get sued in a civil case to try to take away that pension AFTER he recieves it, but any law passed by congress cannot just nullify the govt's obligation to abide by that contract and pay him.

I've personally been through the bullshit of the state attempting to screw me with ex post facto law and trying to take my money. They have no legal basis to do it, and if they try it on Bob they are the ones who are going to get sued.

The constitution is crystal clear on this issue. No Ex post facto law.

No ifs, ands, or buts about it.

01-21-2007, 07:24 AM	#17
ahagotyou Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 571 Senior Member	The clause only came up when you raised it in reply to a post I wrote. What I face is that the clause means only what was said in that case and no more because that is the only opinion that counts in our system for what the clause means. No. There is nothing exclusionary about the decision. There isn't anything fallacious about that stance. Do you deny that the courts interpret the Constitution and their decisions are binding? I think you are reading more into it than is there. There is a big difference between the terms 'retroactive' and 'retrospective'. Bob Ney made a contract with the govt. that affords him a pension. Now of course he could get sued in a civil case to try to take away that pension AFTER he recieves it, but any law passed by congress cannot just nullify the govt's obligation to abide by that contract and pay him. I've personally been through the bullshit of the state attempting to screw me with ex post facto law and trying to take my money. They have no legal basis to do it, and if they try it on Bob they are the ones who are going to get sued. The constitution is crystal clear on this issue. No Ex post facto law. No ifs, ands, or buts about it.
	Quote