To: daytrader
This fails the Ex Post Facto law in our Constitution.
12 posted on
09/25/2009 11:29:04 AM PDT by
pyx
(Rule#1.The LEFT lies.Rule#2.See Rule#1. IF THE LEFT CONTROLS THE LANGUAGE, IT CONTROLS THE ARGUMENT.)
To: pyx
Sadly, the Constitution doesn’t apply in this case, but rather the laws of the state of Massachusetts. Then again, they don’t matter much to liberals, either.
18 posted on
09/25/2009 11:37:20 AM PDT by
OCCASparky
(Steely-Eyed Killer of the Deep)
To: pyx
"This fails the Ex Post Facto law in our Constitution." Probably not. Justice Chase, in Calder v Bull, laid out the four principles that have guided ex post facto decisions ever since. None of those four principles apply here. The law was passed, then Kirk was appointed.
Now, I'm not entirely convinced that Kirk's appointment is allowable under the new statute. I'd like to read this Superior Court judge's decision to see exactly what his reasoning is for denying plaintiff's action.
20 posted on
09/25/2009 11:45:58 AM PDT by
OldDeckHand
(No Socialized Medicine, No Way, No How, No Time)
To: pyx
What’s a Con...sti...tu...tion?
31 posted on
09/25/2009 12:05:21 PM PDT by
hattend
(Sarah Palin's mob minion - Mob Name: Hatman the Hitman)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson