“I would point out that all court decisions are ex post facto since all decisions take place after the fact. And court decisions quite frequently are applied retroactively; witness Furman v Georgia which struck down death penalty verdicts all over the country in 1972.”
Read what I said. I said an ex post facto ruling cannot be retroactively applied. That means that if something is legal in 1860 the Constitution does not allow a ruling in 1868 to go back and charge the actor after the fact (i.e., ex post facto application).
“That is not what the Texas v White decision says.”
That’s what the LAW says.
I think the reason you antagonize so many people on FR (besides you pathological hatred of anything and everything Southern, which is, in all candor, alarming), is that you cherry-pick other’s comments, take them to a place they never were, and then toss in an aside that, while on the surface may seem relevant, but in fact is not. It is, well...a non-sequitur.
Read what I said; they frequently are. Furman v Georgia did not strike down future death penalties, it invalidated the sentence of every person on death row.
That means that if something is legal in 1860 the Constitution does not allow a ruling in 1868 to go back and charge the actor after the fact .
Say what?
"Considered therefore as transactions under the Constitution, the ordinance of secession, adopted by the convention and ratified by a majority of the citizens of Texas, and all the acts of her legislature intended to give effect to that ordinance, were absolutely null. They were utterly without operation in law. The obligations of the State, as a member of the Union, and of every citizen of the State, as a citizen of the United States, remained perfect and unimpaired. It certainly follows that the State did not cease to be a State, nor her citizens to be citizens of the Union." - Chief Justice Chase.
i.e., ex post facto application.
You are incorrect on that.
That’s what the LAW says.
That's what your opinion of what the law says.
I think the reason you antagonize so many people on FR...is that you cherry-pick other’s comments, take them to a place they never were, and then toss in an aside that, while on the surface may seem relevant, but in fact is not. It is, well...a non-sequitur.
The reason why I antagonize you and your friends is that I won't sit back and put up with the nonsense. If I think you're wrong then I say so, and that antagonizes y'all because you can't come up with facts to back your claims. Uncomfortable, I know.
...(besides you pathological hatred of anything and everything Southern, which is, in all candor, alarming...
Another vintage Southron pot-meet-kettle moment considering it can be no more alarming than the pathological hatred of anything and everything Yankee demonstrated by you and your buddies.