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

**gkruCRi1** · 01-21-2007, 07:49 AM

No. There is nothing exclusionary about the decision.

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, 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 going to get sued.

The law will not be retroactive by its own words so Ney gets his pension.

I'd be interested in hearing what kind of thing the state tried to do to you in that regard. Many laws do prevent retroactivity in civil matters plus impairing contracts is another prohibition, etc.

It's just that 'ex post facto' is 'law Latin'--legal jargon with a technical aspect rather than plain talk. That is why it doesn't mean what it says literally but suggests something of a technical nature in law. For example, 'habeas corpus' means 'I have the body.'. A 'writ of I have the body' if translated would be absurd, but we know what habeas corpus covers in the law.

This reminds me why I am a huge advocate of 'plain English' laws and policies that spurn contracts and legal documents that use technical jargon and expressions in 'law Latin' and archaic Middle English terms.

01-21-2007, 07:49 AM	#18
gkruCRi1 Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 505 Senior Member	No. There is nothing exclusionary about the decision. 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, 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 going to get sued. The law will not be retroactive by its own words so Ney gets his pension. I'd be interested in hearing what kind of thing the state tried to do to you in that regard. Many laws do prevent retroactivity in civil matters plus impairing contracts is another prohibition, etc. It's just that 'ex post facto' is 'law Latin'--legal jargon with a technical aspect rather than plain talk. That is why it doesn't mean what it says literally but suggests something of a technical nature in law. For example, 'habeas corpus' means 'I have the body.'. A 'writ of I have the body' if translated would be absurd, but we know what habeas corpus covers in the law. This reminds me why I am a huge advocate of 'plain English' laws and policies that spurn contracts and legal documents that use technical jargon and expressions in 'law Latin' and archaic Middle English terms.
	Quote