[Eromereorybig]

On the same day that the Senate passed a lobby reform bill making it harder for cheats like Abramoff and Ney to bribe and take bribes, Bob Ney is sentenced to prison.

This will put a serious crimp in the plans of senators who have enjoyed "studying legislative issues" while improving their golf game at luxury resorts. They can still work on their putting, but now they will have to pay for it themselves. The Senate package also requires former members to wait two years before they can start lobbying their old pals on Capitol Hill. In the past, they had to wait only one year after leaving Congress.

Lobbyists will find that not only are they limited in handing out goodies to Congress, they must also provide more information in writing about their activities.

Spouses of sitting members will no longer be permitted to lobby the Senate. ABC News: Congress Moves Forward on Ethics Reform

WASHINGTON – Former Republican Rep. Bob Ney was sentenced to 2½ years in prison Friday for trading political favors for golf trips, campaign donations and other gifts in the Jack Abramoff lobbying scandal.
Ney, the first congressman convicted in the federal bribery investigation involving lawmakers, their aides and Bush administration officials, pleaded guilty in October to conspiracy and making false statements.

The six-term lawmaker from Ohio, who once chaired the powerful House Administration Committee, accepted golf and gambling trips, tickets to sporting events, free meals and campaign donations arranged by Abramoff and his associates.

“You violated a host of laws that you as a congressman are sworn to enforce and uphold,” said U.S. District Judge Ellen Segal Huvelle, who recommended that Ney serve his time at a federal prison in Morgantown, W.Va., about an hour-and-a-half drive from his home in Wheeling, W.Va.

Ney will also serve two years probation and must pay a $6,000 fine. There may be more trials for more Republicans that did dirty business with Abramoff. One down, a few more to go.

Among those still under scrutiny for their ties to Abramoff are former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, R-Texas; former Sen. Conrad Burns, R-Mont.; Rep. John Doolittle, R-Calif.; Steven Griles, a former deputy secretary at the Interior Department, and Italia Federici, a political fundraiser for former Interior Secretary Gale Norton. SignOnSanDiego.com > News > Politics -- Former GOP Rep. Bob Ney sentenced to 2½ years in bribery scandal

[PypeMaypetasy]

did you mark this one on your lipstick case sam

[bettingonosports]

You can bet on thing Sam, that if Ney had have been a Democrat, this Forum would have been all over him. Members are strangely quiet when it's a Republican...

[PypeMaypetasy]

You can bet on thing Sam, that if Ney had have been a Democrat, this Forum would have been all over him. Members are strangely quiet when it's a Republican...

wow now that is pretty partisan on your part


PALEEEEASEEEE for the love of god , count up the "bush sucks"/american soldiers suck/ Iraqi war SUCKS threads on this board

yes compared to MOVE ON or DEMO UNDERGROUND this is not totally anti right

but please

[ahagotyou]

I know him personally and I feel sorry for his family. But I seriously doubt he's going to do 2 1/2 years.

But he might, and if you can't do the time don't do the crime. Especially don't make it a lifetime career because no matter how slick you think you are you are going to get busted eventually.

[gkruCRi1]

did you mark this one on your lipstick case sam

When it comes to corruption, I can't see why partisanship should be a theme of it. Do you care whether the person who breaks and enters your home to rob it is a Rep or Dem? The robber doesn't care what your leanings are for sure.

I could care less about what party corrupt officials come from. If convicted, I hope they serve long prison sentences. I even felt this one was a weak one. I favour 10 year mandatory minimums for public corruption convictions because they betray everyone and discredit the system. People who would even think of misusing their office ought to know we in the public will make they pay dearly for betraying the trust we have given them.

One ethics reform I am delighted to see being added to the books at this time is denying pensions to convicted Congressmen who commit abuses of office. The bill is not retroactive, though. It's very annoying to know that people like Ney and other past convicted Congresspeople are getting money from all of us with pensions as a reward for betraying the trust and using their office to illegally serve their own ends against the public interest.

[ahagotyou]

One ethics reform I am delighted to see being added to the books at this time is denying pensions to convicted Congressmen who commit abuses of office. The bill is not retroactive, though. It's very annoying to know that people like Ney and other past convicted Congresspeople are getting money from all of us with pensions as a reward for betraying the trust and using their office to illegally serve their own ends against the public interest.

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

[gkruCRi1]

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'?

[ahagotyou]

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.

The constitution doesn't mention any "only to criminal law" qualifier in the provision.

It just says...

No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.

Source = Link in my sig

Hell, I'd probably be in prison for the rest of my fucking life if government assholes could make ex post facto laws...

And the rest of you would follow.

[gkruCRi1]

It doesn't specify that in the constitution.



Source = Link in my sig

The term 'ex post facto' literally means "from something done afterward" but it was always a technical term in criminal law.

The inapplicability of the clause to civil matters and what aspects it refers to in the criminal law was explained and resolved by the SCOTUS in the case of Calder v. Bull in 1798, almost right after the Constitution was ratified.

In the court's words, the ex post facto clause is implicated in the following circumstances:

Hell, I'd probably be in prison for the rest of my fucking life if government assholes could make ex post facto laws...

And the rest of you would follow.

I agree that applying a law, whether civil or criminal, retroactively to the detriment of a person is unjust in general principle. My state also has the following statutory provision:

§ 1926. Presumption against retroactive effect.

No statute shall be construed to be retroactive unless clearly and manifestly so intended by the General Assembly. CONSTRUCTION OF STATUTES

[ahagotyou]

The term 'ex post facto' literally means "from something done afterward" but it was always a technical term in criminal law.

The inapplicability of the clause to civil matters and what aspects it refers to in the criminal law was explained and resolved by the SCOTUS in the case of Calder v. Bull in 1798, almost right after the Constitution was ratified.

In the court's words, the ex post facto clause is implicated in the following circumstances:



The opinion can be found here:

Calder v. Bull

That decision was about the ex post facto clause in section 10.

I was talking about section 9.

In other words, you cannot make a law that punishes someone for something that was done before that law was passed.

[gkruCRi1]

That decision was about the ex post facto clause in section 10.

I was talking about section 9.

In other words, you cannot make a law that punishes someone for something that was done before that law was passed.

It's the same term so there is no difference as to what it encompasses.

[ahagotyou]

It's the same term so there is no difference as to what it encompasses.

It encompasses all laws.

There is no qualifier.

No law means no law no matter what irrelevant case you bring up.

It's crystal clear.

How do you think the Republic of Iraq got out of paying damages to the families of the OK City bombing?

[gkruCRi1]

It encompasses all laws.

There is no qualifier.

No law means no law no matter what irrelevant case you bring up.

It's crystal clear.

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.

[ahagotyou]

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.

[gkruCRi1]

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.

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

[ahagotyou]

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.

[gkruCRi1]

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.

[corolaelwis]

Ahhhh...i wish i'd seen the word retroctive before Hairball, i'd have made a better argument of it!

Just a side note on the law itself, i think there should be one rule for all, if in standard corruption cases there is a loss of pensions and so on then it should be the case with politicians, if not then politicians shouldn't have to pay an added penalty.

Like everyone keeps saying right....they shouldn't be held to a different standard to everyday Americans should they?

[kranfid]

You can bet on thing Sam, that if Ney had have been a Democrat, this Forum would have been all over him. Members are strangely quiet when it's a Republican...

A corrupt Republican politician being sentenced is so common now a days that hardly anyone notices. In the next two years, you can bet you will see a lot more corrupt Republicans being sentenced, because there are a lot in the pipeline and because the Democrats now have the ability to investigate a whole lot of stinky deals that the GOP majority declined to investigate and I seriously doubt that those deals involved many Democrats.