It's not my opinion. It's the law. Is it your opinion the people will allow what you suggest?
"If not, at what point does the piling on of additional after-the-fact restrictions become a problem for you?"
I only have problems with stuck on stupid. They're talking about rapists and child molesters here. Think ya can stay on topic?
>> "Is it your opinion that the government has the "right"
>> to go round up every convicted felon and throw them back
>> in prison indefinitely? Execute them all?"
>
> It's not my opinion. It's the law.
While I am not a lawyer, I am reasonably well read. I cannot think of a single instance in the entire history of the Republic when additional, non-customary sanctions were put in place after the fact for felons.
Further, I find this definition of ex post facto which seems to bring into question your assertion:
"The state is expressly prohibited from enacting an ex post facto law by article I, section 10 of the United States Constitution and article 1, section 11 of the Minnesota Constitution. An ex post facto law is one that (1) applies to events occurring before its enactment, and (2) disadvantages the person affected by it. The purpose of this limitation is to ensure that individuals have fair warning of legislative acts that could operate to their disadvantage.
An ex post facto law is one that has the purpose or effect of creating a new crime, increasing the punishment for an existing crime, depriving a defendant of a defense available at the time the act was committed, or otherwise rendering an act punishable in a different, more disadvantageous manner than was true under the law at the time it was committed.
A law is not ex post facto if it merely changes trial procedures or rules of evidence and operates in only a limited and unsubstantial manner to the accuseds disadvantage. In addition, a law is not ex post facto if it is a civil, regulatory law and is not sufficiently punitive in purpose or effect to negate the civil label."
http://www.house.leg.state.mn.us/hrd/issinfo/clssexpost.htm
Do you have any case law or reference to back up your position?
>> "If not, at what point does the piling on of additional
>> after-the-fact restrictions become a problem for you?"
>
> ...They're talking about rapists and child molesters
> here. Think ya can stay on topic?
If the government has a power, it has it in all cases whatsoever. That's why real conservatives tend to look askance at increasing the government's power.