Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

To: Non-Sequitur
So the South thought. Turns out they were wrong.

Revisionist history and stacked, politically biased courts do not make a wrong a right. The South Was Right, you boneheaded liar.

Were you not aware that ALL court decisions take place after the fact?

Were you not aware that ex post facto law is generally seen as a violation of the rule of law and, per Article I, section 9 of the U.S. Constitution, the federal government is prohibited from passing ex post facto laws?

What this means is that boot licker Chase could make all the opinions that he wanted to 1 day or 10 years after the fact but he, nor you, nor anybody else in the US can make an act retroactively illegal.

You can distort the facts with your revisionism and northron mythology but you'll never change the facts.

Acting all adult on us again, I see?

What ever are you talking about, smegma face?

614 posted on 03/01/2010 12:27:38 PM PST by cowboyway
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 613 | View Replies ]


To: cowboyway
Revisionist history and stacked, politically biased courts do not make a wrong a right.

Nor do Southron myth and rabid rebel tantrums.

The South Was Right, you boneheaded liar.

No, the South was wrong. And all the name calling in the world will not change that. But name calling is the cowboy way.

Were you not aware that ex post facto law is generally seen as a violation of the rule of law and, per Article I, section 9 of the U.S. Constitution, the federal government is prohibited from passing ex post facto laws?

Good God, you don't even know the difference between an ex post facto law and a court ruling. You truly are dumb as a post. Let me see if I can get some learning into you. An ex post facto law is a law first and foremost. And laws, as you should have learned from your grade school civics class, only originate in the legislature. It is usually, but not exclusively, a law which makes some formerly legal activity illegal and which tries to retroactively apply penalties to those who committed the action. Can't do that. A court decision is handed down by a court of law. It is always handed down after the fact. And, if the court specifies, can be made retroactive. Furman v Georgia is a good example of that.

See the difference now?

You can distort the facts with your revisionism and northron mythology but you'll never change the facts.

You wouldn't know a fact if it bit you in the butt.

What ever are you talking about, smegma face?

Your rationality is rapidly fading, and it was never all that strong to begin with.

616 posted on 03/01/2010 2:55:21 PM PST by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 614 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson