[capitan_refugio]

4ConservativeJustices has never gotten a solid handle on ex post facto laws (unconstitutional in criminal cases) versus retrospective legislation (constitutional). The difference was explained way back in the 1790s. As far as some provisions of the 14th Amendment being, in essence, a bill of attainder (legislative punishment) - that is quite true. Which is why it necessarily had to be in the form of a Constitutional Amendment. Otherwise, it would have been invalid. However, at least 2/3rds of each house of Congress approved and at least 3/4ths of the States ratified the Amendment. It is a done deal and was the verdict of the people with regard to the rebel leaders' treason.

[4CJ]

4ConservativeJustices has never gotten a solid handle on ex post facto laws (unconstitutional in criminal cases) versus retrospective legislation (constitutional).

Did the amendment CRIMINALIZE their actions? Yep. Ex post facto. With a penalty that was not enumerated previously by law? Ex post facto. It's not hard to comprehend.

As far as some provisions of the 14th Amendment being, in essence, a bill of attainder (legislative punishment) - that is quite true.

And Bills of Attainder are STILL unconstitutional.

... at least 2/3rds of each house of Congress approved and at least 3/4ths of the States ratified the Amendment.

Wrong. In submitting the resolution for the amendment, 28 Senators had been unlawfully excluded from the Senate in violation of Article I §3 and Article V. 42 Representatives were similarly denied seats. 15 of the 37 states rejected the Amendment.