Posted on 12/09/2016 7:22:15 AM PST by TangoLimaSierra
I didn't know that. It seems to be a distinction created by the courts. A plain reading of the US Constitution makes no distinction between civil and criminal in ex post facto laws. It simply bars them, by both federal government AND state.
To enact a law that penalizes someone after the fact, either by jail or taking of property, is obscene. As loathsome as Jill Stein is, she should not be required to pay millions when the applicable law at the time of the recount said she did not. There is no way a prudent person can comply with laws passed in the future....
Do you recognize any of those sources, much less consider them vetted?
This is about the state confiscating the money to pay for the costs of the recount. The contributors a screwed anyway. And should be.
Thanks for not giving a clue to what your post is.
But, if it pertains to the MI recount as alluded to in a few posts, this is days old news posted and reposted here.
Thanks. Makes sense.
If the report about the new MI law asking full recovery from those greater than 5% from a victory is true, then that would truly discourage frivolous recounts such as Stein’s.
However, I always thought she was doing so at the behest of the Clinton campaign. So, in the future, the true aggrieved party would have to step up if they want a recount.
You are correct. Maybe Trump should do the same with a Retroactive Income Tax DECREASE.
And watch the libtards heads explode.
There is some truth to this; I read a few days ago that they are filing a bill that would put the cost of a recount like this on the candidate. They even have a clawback provision that would reach back to Stein for the money that has been spent so far.
BTW..she has not collected $9 million; she is stuck at $7.3 million and she has already spent more than that...she is broke!
Soros needs to be arrested he funded the protests after the election, recounts still ongoing etc.
A few million is pocket change to this Marxist activist criminal
It does raise the question, how difficult is it to reprogram a voting machine?
Other than for the possibility of taking Stein's money, I'd flat out foreclose the right to recount unless an allegation is made that the results of the recount could cause the petitioner to become the winner. Some people have enough money that the cost is as frivolous as the meaningless recount, and the law should not allow it.
Thanks for nor reading the title.
So all they have to do is call it a tax and, of course, John Roberts will agree. Somehow, I doubt it.
I wouldn't say 100's of billions. His net is about 25 billion. Bill Gates on the other hand is worth around 85 billion.
An unkown stooge like Stein puts up a web site and suddenly a few million in donations in a few days and people don’t suspect Soros? wt?
Jill Stein might have a right to a stupid and futile gesture, but does she have a right to a stupid and futile gesture at the expense of Michigan taxpayers? (It seems to be rare to go after protesters for financial damages, probably because most don't have $20 in their wallets, but Stein and her husband are both doctors and financial statements indicate they are worth about $8MM.)
Is Michigan doing anything more than quantifying the damages with their new law?
No, Hence the warning.
Here's another:
http://www.detroitnews.com/story/news/politics/2016/12/06/michigan-stein-recount/95046058/
“Thanks for nor reading the title. “
I read the title. It does not mention Michigan.
Wrong format.....Like Obama’s CD’s he gave the British.
I searched. You got links?
According to Article I, Section 10 of the Constitution, “no State shall pass any ex post facto Law.” A similar provision that applies to Congress is found in Section 9 of the same article. At first glance these constitutional prohibitions seem simple enough—retroactive laws violate the
Constitution. Unfortunately, the issue is not so simple. With one ruling in 1798, the Supreme Court succeeded in muddling the issue of ex post facto laws by holding that the prohibition of retroactive laws applies only to criminal, not civil, laws.
https://object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/serials/files/cato-journal/1995/11/cj15n2-3-4.pdf
Guess it depends on what “ANY” means...takes a court to screw up this:
“No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.”
“No State shall...pass any...ex post facto Law”
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.