[Non-Sequitur]

Once again you miss the point of the decisions entirely, GOP. In neither case you quoted does the court agree with your position. In fact, Justice Chase (no, not that one) specifically says "If the term ex post facto law is to be construed to include and to prohibit the enacting any law after a fact, it will greatly restrict the power of the federal and state legislatures; and the consequences of such a construction may not be foreseen." An ex post facto law is, as Justice Chase and Justice Marshall point out, one which makes illegal an activity that was legal when committed. But you know better than they, don't you?

[GOPcapitalist]

Once again you miss the point of the decisions entirely, GOP. In neither case you quoted does the court agree with your position.

I just checked the one that I still had pulled up and saw nothing contradicting its statement of fact about habeas corpus. Do you have anything that shows otherwise?

In fact, Justice Chase (no, not that one) specifically says "If the term ex post facto law is to be construed to include and to prohibit the enacting any law after a fact, it will greatly restrict the power of the federal and state legislatures;

And that is so, but his reference was not to the application I describe but rather an extreme construction of the term that permits essentially any law whasoever to be covered under it.

An ex post facto law is, as Justice Chase and Justice Marshall point out, one which makes illegal an activity that was legal when committed.

Marshall put it differently. His definition was as follows: "An ex post facto law is one which renders an act punishable in a manner in which it was not punishable when it was committed."

That means an act which changes the type of punishment for an act after the fact, and as the case you cited indicates, this historically included acts in England where ex post facto laws were passed to lessen penalties to the advantage of some.