Posted on 09/28/2009 5:16:56 PM PDT by Sub-Driver
A handful of Democratic senators are promoting legislation to repeal immunity for telecommunications firms that cooperated with the Bush administration on a warantless wiretapping program.Passage is definitely no sure thing -- and Obama would be in even worse shape if it came to his desk. He wouldn't dare sign it, and he wouldn't dare veto it.
This bill would be a GREAT backlash mechanism against this administration and this House and Senate!
The Supreme Court would lay them low, based on the observation onewingedshark has made.
Yeah - we looked that one up just this week-end. No laws to be made retro-active! These guys are just so full of themselves!
So that lowlife bahstad wants to revoke telecom immunity, eh?!
How can we “revoke” the free pass that bahstad has been enjoying vis-a-vis his redhanded involvement in the Fannie Mae & Freddie Mac fiasco; and while we’re at it, let’s “revoke” it for The Banking Queen, Bahnie Frank, as well!
“No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.” has NOTHING to do with a criminal charge. Period. End of story. In fact it’s so crystal-clear that ex post facto “Executive Orders” would be suspect.
Either an executive order IS a law and therefore falls under that prohibition, or it is not and consequently has NO authority and is nonpunishable.
Grant of immunity if you like. It’s usually said that Jerry Ford pardoned Nixon, so it’s not uncommon to use the word loosely.
Doesn’t the Constitution say something about no ex post facto laws?
Aw, isn't that cute? Dodd's stringing together a bunch of words he doesn't understand.
Article 1, Section 9 No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto law shall be passed...SSZ
This going back and making criminals of everyone from a former administration is not only wrong - it's very destructive to the country.
/
This is ridiculous ...
First immunity, now no immunity - if Congress changes hands in 2010, immunity again ??? ...
WTF ??? This legislation might very well be an ex post facto law ...
“No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.” has NOTHING to do with a criminal charge.
***
Beg to differ - SCOTUS has ruled that ex post facto laws are those that apply almost exclusively to criminal cases ...
Not all - but most ...
In that event, it becomes a "pocket veto", and thus by default, a veto. He can't vote "Present"...
the infowarrior
The USSC can SAY that all it wants; that does not make it true. For example: the Dread Scott case, or the case where it was decided that wheat wholly grown and sold within one state fall under the interstate commerce regulation abilities of the federal government.
Yeah, if it reaches his desk with fewer days to be signed than there are days left in the Congressional session, not signing it becomes a “pocket” veto. Jerry Ford liked doing those. :’)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.