That's idiotic; Ex Post Facto has a specific meaning:
ex post fac·toIt has nothing to do with the application of the law to particular people.
adjective & adverb
with retroactive effect or force.(Wikipedia)
An ex post facto law (Latin for "from after the action" or "after the facts") is a law that retroactively changes the legal consequences (or status) of actions that were committed, or relationships that existed, before the enactment of the law.
Yep, and when applied (force) retroactively, it is found that the law is being applied in an ex post facto fashion. When not applied retroactively, it is not ex post facto.
Your little tantrums and name calling, aren't really helping your position. Especially, when you cut and paste definitions that underscore my point.
Felons after 1968 suffer no ex post facto consequence when the law is applied to them. Thus, for them, the law is not ex post facto. If any law, that is ANY law, passed after 1968, were applied to someone who violated that law after 1968, it would make the application of the law an ex post facto violation, not the law itself, just the application.
Again, only wording that specifically had words to the effect, "and this applies to people retroactively" would be found to be an ex post facto law. And even then, only if the entire law were found to rest on that wording would it be cast out entirely.
The fact that certain provisions of laws, and not laws in their entirety, are regularly ruled on isn't a matter of opinion. Why are you still arguing as if this isn't common practice?
It has nothing to do with the application of the law to particular people.
Other than the fact that specific application is the only possible definition of ex post facto, you are correct. So you are only 100% wrong, but on everything else I stand corrected.