I saw a write-up on MI’s new law yesterday, so that part of this report is valid. The video says the law wants to be retroactive to last January 2016, and anyone not within 5% of winning a recount must pay the entire recount cost if they still lose the recount. I did not see that part in the article I skimmed yesterday about the new MI law.
Since Stein is at only 1% total, 94% away from being within 5% of a victory, that puts her in jeopardy of having to repay the entire recount cost, and that is how they ‘confiscate’ her war chest.
I wonder, though, if a retroactive law is itself legal. Is that the same as ‘ex post facto’?
I seem to recall Clinton got away with it.
I believe the constitutional prohibition against ex post facto laws relates to criminal charges, not civil statutes. Governments pass retroactive tax increases all the time.
Let her keep her money and let Someone else settle up with her on His own timetable.
Keep an eye on the electoral college and other known smartasses until January 21st.
Yep. But it should also be noted that federal tax law changes are regularly ex post facto laws and no one has successfully challenged them on that basis.
A good lawyer will always answer "that depends."
The Lautenberg amendment, which stripped RKBA from persons convicted of demestic violence, was held to apply retroactively, no sweat.
Taxes and fees are routinely applied and changed "after the transaction" that leads to the tax or fee.
The first definition of what exactly constitutes an ex post facto law is found in Calder v Bull (3 US 386 [1798]), in the opinion of Justice Chase:"1st. Every law that makes an action done before the passing of the law, and which was innocent when done, criminal; and punishes such action. 2d. Every law that aggravates a crime, or makes it greater than it was, when committed. 3d. Every law that changes the punishment, and inflicts a greater punishment, than the law annexed to the crime, when committed. 4th. Every law that alters the legal rules of evidence, and receives less, or different, testimony, than the law required at the time of the commission of the offense, in order to convict the offender."
Obviously, this rule is not always applied. See Lautenberg amendment.
All that said, I don't think the courts would allow Michigan to upcharge Stein. Prohibition on ex post facto is a good reason.
I think that the Ex Post Facto concept does not apply to Civil Suits. So if the Michigan Legislature makes it a Civil Matter they could legally try to grab her money-a fitting and proper act with that Stein trash.
Ex Post Facto didn’t stop KKKlintoon’s Retroactive Income Tax Increase .......................
It shouldn't be legal, it really shouldn't, but there is precedence.
The Lautenberg Amendment retroactively took away anyone's Second Amendment rights if they had ever been convicted of misdemeanor domestic violence, no matter how long in the past the conviction occurred.
This caught a lot of military and law enforcement, since many plead guilty to misdemeanor domestic violence charges and paid a small fine rather than fight the charges in court and pay thousands, usually during a messy divorce.
The Lautenberg Amendment was upheld by SCOTUS.
Soros has 100’s of billions of dollars and this is less than a penny to him
I wonder, though, if a retroactive law is itself legal. Is that the same as ‘ex post facto’?
Yes, I am from Michigan, and I heard about this on Michigan radio news program out of state capital, Lansing.
In Detroit News, two Republican Michigan Supreme Court Judges have excluded themselves from Stein’s appeal because they were on Trumps list. Young and Larsen were on the list.
That leaves the SC with 3 Repubs and 2 Dems. One of the Repubs tends lean more Dem then Repub. Not so sure now about that appeal being rejected or the case being heard.
Repubs always bow out- one of the Judges, Young is 65 yrs old- highly doubtful he would be nominated (in his own words).
That is correct. You can't declare something illegal then go back and prosecute someone for doing it before it was illegal.
Ex post facto laws are prohibited with respect to criminal laws but not necessarily in regard to Civil laws. Provided there is no Criminal penalty a law requiring repayment of services to the government would not necessarily be unconstitutional. For instance a tax law that is passed that raises taxes retroactively for earnings made before the end of the current tax year would not be unconstitutional even though the money was earned at a time when the money was subject to a lower tax.
There are a lot of laws that apply retroactively that manage to punish people and companies monetarily but not criminally that are passed every year.
I’d say they should pass it and then let Jill Stein either pay it or pay her attorneys or both.
Frankly the State could just sue her for filing a frivolous lawsuit and making a frivolous demand for a frivolous recount. So even if the law were ruled unconstitutional, she could still be sued for wasting taxpayer dollars on a lark.
I wonder, though, if a retroactive law is itself legal.
No.
Is that the same as ‘ex post facto’?
Yes.
You will be happy to know that since the case of Calder v. Bull in 1797, the prohibition against ex post facto laws only applies to criminal prosecution, not civil claims.
Correct. They are very limited in their ability to apply an ex-post facto law.
IIRC Ex pos facto Constitutionally deals with criminal statutes, not laws pertaining to how say the government functions etc. Fort instance Judicial Rulings can be retroactive on how the government dealt with an entity or persons.