Another shocker from court

WorldNetDaily.com ^ | Wednesday, July 2, 2003 | Joseph Farah

[JohnHuang2]

Wednesday, July 2, 2003

Quote of the Day by Liz

[First Amendment]

Prosecutors in the Golden State spent last weekend scrambling to figure out a response to last Thursday's 5-4 decision that California had violated the Constitution's ban on ex post facto – after the fact – laws when the Legislature changed the time limit for bringing criminal charges in child sex-abuse cases to cover older cases.

Anyone have some details on this? Is Farah referring to a SCOTUS ruling or a CA SC ruling? Sounds absolutely vile.

[First Amendment]

Prosecutors in the Golden State spent last weekend scrambling to figure out a response to last Thursday's 5-4 decision that California had violated the Constitution's ban on ex post facto – after the fact – laws when the Legislature changed the time limit for bringing criminal charges in child sex-abuse cases to cover older cases.

Anyone have some details on this? Is Farah referring to a SCOTUS ruling or a CA SC ruling? Sounds absolutely vile.

[First Amendment]

Sorry. It is vile, though.

[Lancey Howard]

BUMP!!

[Cachelot]

Anyone have some details on this? Is Farah referring to a SCOTUS ruling or a CA SC ruling?

SCOTUS:

was supported by Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Sandra Day O'Connor, David H. Souter and John Paul Stevens.

[PeaceBeWithYou]

This wasn't about penalties, it was a change in the Statute of Limitations for child abuse crimes.

[AntiGuv]

I know. I know. Such a movement has not a snowball's chance in Miami of being successful in the short term.

Interesting. Joseph Farah uses "in the short term" as a euphemism for "in our lifetime" - what a curious affectation...

[AntiGuv]

It's true no U.S. Supreme Court justice has ever been impeached.

Ummm.. It's only true if that doesn't include impeached Supreme Court Justice Samuel Chase....

[grania]

It's time to put some heat on those abusing their power – and let's name names: Stephen G. Breyer authored this latest outrage. It, like the decisions about sodomy and racial preferences, was supported by Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Sandra Day O'Connor, David H. Souter and John Paul Stevens.

According to the article, it's the US Supremes who did us in, again.

Such an initiative would have a great chance at success, I'd suspect. Conservatives are unamused by these three decisions that strike a big blow to conservative values; lots of Democrats are still unamused by the US Supreme Court's interference in the vote-counting process in Florida. That's a real lot of angry folks altogether.

[DPB101]

Since we would have repealed the ex post facto clause, the court would have no recourse but let us review old crimes and add penalties if we desire.

The court went beyond any reasonable interperation of the ex post facto clause in Stogner v. California.

The purpose of the ex post facto clause was to prevent a legal act from being criminalized after the fact--mainly as a protection against political enemies using the law to go after their opponent after winning an election. Child abuse was illegal when Stogner did it. It is also a malum in se crime--the evil is apparent to all. Stogner didn't, in good will, simply not know what the law was. Extending the time period under which a crime can be prosecuted--as the California legislature did--is not making criminal what was once legal.

[joesnuffy]

Rule of Law
or Rule of man
They are getting too big for their britches and need to be taken down a few pegs
where they belong..
Farah is correct...impeach them

[Dog Gone]

The question before the court was whether crimes that could not be prosecuted, because the statute of limitations had long since passed, could suddenly be revived by new legislation.

It's an interesting issue and a closer call than most people think.

Let's just imagine for a moment that Congress changes the statute of limitations on income tax fraud to 30 years. The IRS comes after you for claiming false deductions in your 1978 tax return. You have, of course, long since thrown away your papers from that year.

You're toast.

[DPB101]

Correct on all points of course. But this is still an expansion of the ex post facto clause. I would agree with the expansion had the court decided on the hypothetical tax case you mention. Nobody even really knows what the law is when they file. But a malum in se act is different. After 9/11, Congress removed the statue of limitations on many acts of terrorism. This ruling apparently tosses those revisions off the books.

[aristeides]

My recollection from my days clerking on the U.S. Tax Court is that there is currently no statute of limitations on tax fraud, as a civil matter. The government can go after an individual for a tax fraud debt -- including interest and penalties -- for what he did in, say, 1960, or a corporation for what it did in 1910. I saw a case while at the court that involved acts nearly 30 years old. And, as you suggest, the individual's lack of documentation was held against him.

[aristeides]

This ruling apparently tosses those revisions off the books.

Only retroactively, I presume. The lack of a statute of limitations for the terrorist crimes would, I assume, still be valid at least for acts committed after the change in the law (and perhaps also for acts on which the statute of limitations had not yet run at the time of the change in the law.)

[aristeides]

In general, I support enforcing limitations on the government like statutes of limitations. But in this case I have to wonder whether it is just a coincidence that, the day after this decision, the Supreme Court vacated at least the sentence of Matthew Limon, who had sodomized a 14-year-old boy, in light of its Lawrence decision.