Speak Out: Democrats Propose Bill Requiring Candidates To Release Tax Returns

Posted by Shapley Hunter on Fri, Jul 20, 2012, at 9:22 AM:

http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/238857-dems-hit-mitt-with-a-tax-bill

Of course, this would be an ex post facto law if they attempted to apply it to the already-declared candidates, including Mr. Romney. In fact, it is exactly the type of law the prohibition was included to prohibit.

Alas! The Democrats have had little use for the limitations imposed by the Constitution of late, and this is just their latest attempt to misuse the law for political advantage at the expense of freedom.

Not to mention that tax returns are supposed to be confidential, by also by law.

Replies (49)

  • Yeah! Just who do they think they are? I mean, oh sure, the Republicans ribbed Obama a little about his birth certificate and they are working on laws to make it harder for U.S. citizens who don't like their policies to vote. But asking a Republican for his long form tax return is just going too far! Who do those Democrats think they are? Republicans or something?

    -- Posted by DADES on Fri, Jul 20, 2012, at 10:13 AM
  • They can't run the president on his record so they distract in any way possible.

    -- Posted by Old John on Fri, Jul 20, 2012, at 10:20 AM
  • The requirement to be a U.S. Citizen is in the Constitution. The requirement to post your tax records is not. Ergo, you can't compare demanding proof of citizenship (a Constitutional qualification of office) with a desire to peak at one's finances to satisfy curiosity.

    To the best of my knowledge, there is nothing in the Republican proposals on voter fraud that test one's preference for Republican policies. As I've asked commonsensematters: what makes you think Democrat voters are more likely than Republican voters to not have a photo ID or to be afraid to show it? I thought the Republicans supposedly had the 'black helicopter crowd' in their back pocket...

    -- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Fri, Jul 20, 2012, at 10:37 AM
  • "...what makes you think Democrat voters are more likely than Republican voters to not have a photo ID..."

    Previously answered. People that are most likely to not have photo ID's are the poor, elderly, and minorities. These same groups tend to vote Democratic, thereby generating the republican effort to limit their access to the polls.

    -- Posted by commonsensematters on Fri, Jul 20, 2012, at 10:56 AM
  • "http://www.princeton.edu/~starr/articles/articles11/Starr_GOPSeniorMoment_1-2011.pdf"

    Actually, The elderly supported the Republicans heavily in the last election, and the indications are that they continue to shift away from the Democrats. Hence, the evidence does not suppor that conclusion.

    Most articles I read also claim students would be affected severly, since many do not have drivers' licenses. But, the majority of students of voting age (18) will be college students. Assuming they are attending a state-run college, they are likely to have a state-college-issued photo ID as part of their enrollment, hence that argument seems specious. Even those who do not attend state-run colleges will most likely have a college-issued photo ID, which is likely to meet state requirements.

    http://www.princeton.edu/~starr/articles/articles11/Starr_GOPSeniorMoment_1-2011...

    -- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Fri, Jul 20, 2012, at 11:14 AM
  • Commonsense will choke on a gnat but will swallow an elephant (or was it a camel?)!

    -- Posted by voyager on Fri, Jul 20, 2012, at 11:15 AM
  • "...supported the Republicans heavily in the last election,..."

    I would suggest that the elderly are not one homogeneous group. Those tending republican are likely to be wealthier, and have an ability to obtain a photo ID easily.

    Per your link, this may change if Governor Romney continues to push the Ryan plan to gut Medicare for a voucher plan.

    -- Posted by commonsensematters on Fri, Jul 20, 2012, at 11:46 AM
  • "I would suggest that the elderly are not one homogeneous group. Those tending republican are likely to be wealthier, and have an ability to obtain a photo ID easily."

    I would say that is a guess on your part. As you note, the elderly (nor the poor, nor minorities) are not a homogenous group. Many elderly are quite patriotic, for example, and tend to vote for the party that favours a strong military.

    "Per your link, this may change if Governor Romney continues to push the Ryan plan to gut Medicare for a voucher plan."

    If the Democrats can successfully convince them that the plan 'guts' Medicare. I believe that was selected as the 'Lie of the Year' by Politifact.

    http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2011/dec/20/lie-year-democrats-c...

    But that doesn't stop the Democrats from repeating it.

    -- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Fri, Jul 20, 2012, at 12:06 PM
  • The requirement to be a U.S. Citizen is in the Constitution. -- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Fri, Jul 20, 2012, at 10:37 AM

    Dades and most democrats care little about the constitution. By the way, isn't Nancy Pelosi refusing to release her tax records? Hypocrisy knows no limits for today's democrats.

    -- Posted by not_sorry on Fri, Jul 20, 2012, at 2:35 PM
  • I would suggest that the elderly are not one homogeneous group. -- Posted by commonsensematters on Fri, Jul 20, 2012, at 11:46 AM

    As is apparent to everyone on this site, you will suggest anything of little to no fact out of thin air to support a president you voted for that is probably the worst in history.

    Shapely is right - seniors are voting more and more with conservatives and republicans. Who wouldn't with Obama's failure? Jimmy Carter II.

    -- Posted by not_sorry on Fri, Jul 20, 2012, at 2:37 PM
  • The AffordableEntitlementAct is equal to running down hill in total darkness-- a person never knows what's coming or what's at the end .

    That's good. I like that. Did you come up with it yourself? If not, I would suggest letting us know where you got that phrase in order to keep the SO Deputy Sheriff off of you back. Plagarism and all.

    -- Posted by FreedomFadingFast on Fri, Jul 20, 2012, at 3:24 PM
  • "...the plan 'guts' Medicare. I believe that was selected as the 'Lie of the Year' by Politifact..."

    There is a "minor" omission in the definition of "the lie of the year." Most of the "false" ratings refer to Democrats saying the Ryan plan would "end Medicare."

    Clearly, even Ryan has not dared to go so far afield. The basic truth is that the Ryan plan would change ("gut" if you will) Medicare from an effective insurance program that has worked well for millions of Americans, to an entitlement plan which would pay each participant so many dollars and require them to pay for the remainder of the cost out of their pocket.

    Instead of a sensible, and extremely cost-effective insurance program, you get a voucher and are "on your own." The beauty of the Ryan plan is that it becomes totally independent of any realistic need. The set Medicare amount per year is pre-determined and should it become advantageous for funds to be reallocated for other purposes, the voucher amounts can be reduced. The purpose of Medicare has always been to provide for senior Americans, not as a fund source for tax-cuts or other government expenditures.

    A more sane and rational approach to the "fixing" of Medicare toward self-sufficiency, has always been to adjust eligibility ages, increase payroll deductions, change monthly premium amounts, or add co-pays for individual office visits or services. In this fashion, Medicare could continue indefinitely as a valid and successful means of providing health insurance for all Americans.

    -- Posted by commonsensematters on Fri, Jul 20, 2012, at 3:24 PM
  • A more sane and rational approach to the "fixing" of Medicare toward self-sufficiency, has always been to adjust eligibility ages, increase payroll deductions, change monthly premium amounts, or add co-pays for individual office visits or services. In this fashion, Medicare could continue indefinitely as a valid and successful means of providing health insurance for all Americans.

    -- Posted by commonsensematters on Fri, Jul 20, 2012, at 3:24 PM

    A liberal's way to fix anything always entails the government raising more money.

    How about checking with employees and see just how serious they are about their Social Security and Medicare.

    Set a schedule of FICA Taxes to be charged at differnt levels with the smount of benefits that can be expected at retirement based on the tax they agree to pay. Let the employee choose.

    Have the employer increase their current wages by the amount he is now taxed and then make it a 100% employee paid plan. There would then be no resistance from the employer on future increases the government deems necessary to support the plan the employee chooses. The employees would then not have that evil employer to deal with. They could then deal with their benevolent government.

    And one more thing.... it must be self supporting with no money being moved in or out of the fund by Congress or the President. Some might say it would not be Constitutional. No fear the Supreme Court just proved they will buy anything. They didn't even send the POS Obamacare back to Congress for rework. They took it upon themselves to determine that a premium was a tax and Constitutional. No matter what the law said.

    -- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Fri, Jul 20, 2012, at 3:48 PM
  • "increase payroll deductions"

    You mean raise taxes. Why not call a spade a spade? We do not 'deduct premiums' from payroll, we pay payroll taxes, and employers also pay payroll taxes to support it.

    "A more sane and rational approach to the "fixing" of Medicare..."

    Then I take it you agree that Mr. Obama's and the Democrats' cutting of the payroll tax was both insane and irrational?

    "The beauty of the Ryan plan is that it becomes totally independent of any realistic need."

    That is the beauty of it, because 'needs driven' (i.e. entitlement) spending is largely responsible for the budget deficit. As it stands, there is not incentive to reduce the costs, since they are 'needs driven' and the funding will rise to meet the demand.

    -- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Fri, Jul 20, 2012, at 4:11 PM
  • "The purpose of Medicare has always been to provide for senior Americans, not as a fund source for tax-cuts..."

    You don't need a fund source for tax cuts. If you cut taxes, you simply take less taxes in, you don't pay more out...

    -- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Fri, Jul 20, 2012, at 4:14 PM
  • "There is a "minor" omission in the definition of "the lie of the year." Most of the "false" ratings refer to Democrats saying the Ryan plan would "end Medicare"."

    The point being, had you read through the link, is that the Ryan plan does not affect seniors currently enrolled or soon to be enrolled, ergo telling Seniors that he will 'gut the programme' is a lie. Politifact chided several of the Democrats for using images of seniors clearly too old to be affected by the Ryan plan.

    Since we were talking about the plan's impact on the elderly and their currently being among those most likely to not have IDs, suggesting that telling them that the plan seeks to 'gut Medicare' to win their votes amounts to spreading the lie of the year.

    There is no reason to assume that those destined to become elderly ten years from now will be severely impacted by the ID requirement.

    -- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Fri, Jul 20, 2012, at 4:18 PM
  • What about college transcripts? throw that in there also. Oh I for got don't want to do that.

    -- Posted by swampeastmissouri on Fri, Jul 20, 2012, at 4:34 PM
  • "The purpose of Medicare has always been to provide for senior Americans, not as a fund source for tax-cuts..."

    I'm sure, of course, that you're trying to say that the payroll tax should not be used to offset any loss of revenue due to tax cuts, but that's not quite the same thing.

    Anyhow, the payroll taxes are not currently sufficient even to pay for Part A of the programme. The Trustees' Report for 2012 shows that about 42% of Medicare's Total funding currently comes from General Revenue.

    http://www.cms.gov/Research-Statistics-Data-and-Systems/Statistics-Trends-and-Re...

    -- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Fri, Jul 20, 2012, at 4:50 PM
  • The seniors that lived through the great depression and WWII were conditioned at an early age to believe in and trust government. The depression and the war ended with prosperity following. I'm not saying that loyalty to the government was wrong, out of place or naive, but many of todays seniors are of a later generation that don't have a Edward Murrow or Walter Cronkite to give them sole government perspective.

    AARP is not the only game in town with senors either. As it is with this forum, nationwide there is no particular alignment of the senor vote to one issue. IMHO

    -- Posted by Old John on Sat, Jul 21, 2012, at 12:18 AM
  • "You don't need a fund source for tax cuts. If you cut taxes, you simply take less taxes in, you don't pay more out..."

    Of course you need a fund source. In any budget involving income and expenditures, if income is reduced (i.e. tax cuts) expenditures must be offset accordingly by reductions (i.e. paid for by the offset.)

    In the case of the Ryan budget, he has simply designed an extremely easy mechanism to offset tax cuts by across the board cuts in the amounts of Medicare vouchers.

    -- Posted by commonsensematters on Sat, Jul 21, 2012, at 7:46 AM
  • "...the Ryan plan does not affect seniors currently enrolled or soon to be enrolled..."

    That of course brings up the question of why. If the Ryan plan is such an overwhelming improvement to current Medicare, why not implement it immediately for everyone?

    It is fairly obvious that the answer is politics and the attempt to sway votes by exempting current enrollees, and the hope that future enrollees will not be paying attention.

    -- Posted by commonsensematters on Sat, Jul 21, 2012, at 8:00 AM
  • It bares repeating. I'm more worried about what obama does with my money than what Romney did with his.

    -- Posted by Mowrangler on Sat, Jul 21, 2012, at 2:48 PM
  • "...the Ryan plan does not affect seniors currently enrolled or soon to be enrolled..."

    That of course brings up the question of why. If the Ryan plan is such an overwhelming improvement to current Medicare, why not implement it immediately for everyone?

    It is fairly obvious that the answer is politics and the attempt to sway votes by exempting current enrollees, and the hope that future enrollees will not be paying attention.

    -- Posted by commonsensematters on Sat, Jul 21, 2012, at 8:00 AM

    Common,

    Do you think maybe the reason for the delay in implementing it is that with the Obama Recession they feel that the old folks who were stupid enough to believe the Democrats lies over the years regarding Social Security and Medicare cannot find a job right now to support themselves, therefore providing them with the safety net of leaving them where they are.

    Since I never planned on Social Security as a way of life, I made other provisions. Medicare is a different matter, they screwed me on that one where I will take the government plan or be out of luck if I cannot pay for a catastrophic illness. But then of course we have Obamacare now, so as a retired American I can be issued a bottle of pills to kill the pain until I die.

    I wish America had never heard of FDR and his New Deal. Or Lyndon Johnson and his Great Society for that matter.

    -- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Sat, Jul 21, 2012, at 3:15 PM
  • We have no way of knowing if Americans would have come up with a better plan if there had been no FDR and his New Deal. Apparently they weren't ready when the Depression of the 30's hit and apparently we aren't actually ready now.

    Unfortunately, Congress and the Presidency made it easier for jobs to go over the borders and immigrants to take the lower paying jobs, so there is no net to catch our unemployed citizens as the economy goes sour. We still need the wealthy to bail us out, however, we don't seem to have faith in their doing so, so we tax them until they realize that leaving the country is their only option.

    It doesn't seem to be a win/win this time around.

    -- Posted by InReply on Sat, Jul 21, 2012, at 3:50 PM
  • As to how much money the Candidates have or how many taxes they pay, I'm not interested. I just want to know what they propose to do to correct the current state of affairs in America.

    -- Posted by InReply on Sat, Jul 21, 2012, at 3:51 PM
  • "If the Ryan plan is such an overwhelming improvement to current Medicare, why not implement it immediately for everyone?"

    It's called 'planning'. It is a change to the programme, and the people who will be affected by the change should be given some time to arrange their affairs to accomodate the changes.

    Even more so, as you've repeated numerous times, seniors already enrolled in the programme believe they have a contract to retain the programme as it now exists. Rather than pull the rug out from under those who, in the view of many, are in no position to alter their lives to accomodate the change, they are 'grandfathered in', so that they will see no change in their benefits. Isn't that the normal way of doing business. It sort of goes along with the 'no ex post facto laws' concept which, as I noted in the opening of this thread, the Democrats seem to have not problem violating.

    The same question could be asked of Mr. Obama's health care overhaul. If it was such a good idea, why was so much of it not set to go into effect until after the 2012 elections?

    -- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Sun, Jul 22, 2012, at 6:46 AM
  • "It is fairly obvious that the answer is politics and the attempt to sway votes by exempting current enrollees, and the hope that future enrollees will not be paying attention."

    No, it's fairly obvious to those paying attention that the Medicare Programme cannot continue as it exists, and that changes will need to be made for the future. It's also obvious that, for those of who view the programme as an unjustifiable extension of the role of the federal government, the idea of shifting towards a more constitutional system while not throwing seniors 'out in the cold' is laudable.

    -- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Sun, Jul 22, 2012, at 6:51 AM
  • "...set to go into effect until after the 2012 elections?"

    "It's called 'planning'. It is a change to the programme, and the people who will be affected by the change should be given some time to arrange their affairs to accomodate the changes."

    Except in the case of the Affordable Care Act, the vast majority of Americans will have to do little or nothing, as they are already on Medicare or have existing qualifying policies.

    Those states that are on the ball, are already creating the health insurance exchanges in order to allow the free market to bring overall costs down.

    -- Posted by commonsensematters on Sun, Jul 22, 2012, at 7:25 AM
  • But, again, you ignore the question you yourself asked. If it is so great, why not enact all of its provisions (and taxes) immediately?

    Is that not what you wanted to know of Mr. Ryan's plan?

    -- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Sun, Jul 22, 2012, at 7:30 AM
  • "...that changes will need to be made for the future."

    Those changes have already been recognized, and they involve modifications to eligibility dates, percentages of payroll tax deducted, the percent of services covered, and additional co-pays. Necessary changes can be made without "gutting" the system.

    -- Posted by commonsensematters on Sun, Jul 22, 2012, at 7:30 AM
  • CSM if this is so great then why did obama let his friends opt out?

    -- Posted by Mowrangler on Sun, Jul 22, 2012, at 7:59 AM
  • CSM if this is so great then why did obama let his friends opt out? -- Posted by Mowrangler on Sun, Jul 22, 2012, at 7:59 AM

    Give it up Mo - when you ask Common a tough question like this he has no answer and you will be ignored. I've asked why unions - large numbers - are asking for and getting waivers. Common won't answer. The only answer I got was from a union member - howdydoody - and that was basically "too bad - I have a great union policy, you're going to have to live with Obamacare".

    -- Posted by not_sorry on Sun, Jul 22, 2012, at 10:49 AM
  • "when you ask Common a tough question like this he has no answer and you will be ignored."

    Are you saying that is why Common ignores me... my questions are too tough? I'll try to think of something easier in the future.

    -- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Sun, Jul 22, 2012, at 11:09 AM
  • "...why did (President) Obama let his friends opt out?"

    What opt out? Here is a quote from the law summary...

    "Restricts the health plans that the federal government may make available to Members of Congress and congressional staff after the effective date of this subtitle to only those health plans that are created under this Act or offered through an Exchange."

    -- Posted by commonsensematters on Sun, Jul 22, 2012, at 11:13 AM
  • Common - your description does not include union health care plans. As a result, unions are getting "waivers" from Obama.

    a) why would a union want a "waiver" from the great, fantastic Obamacare?

    b) why would Obama grant unions the waivers?

    -- Posted by not_sorry on Sun, Jul 22, 2012, at 11:31 AM
  • Temporary waivers for 1 year were granted for coverage ceilings and for the administrative cost percentages.

    So what? These were minor waivers to schedules, not waivers to the entire program. Could it be that the ones that know the least, are complaining the most. ..

    -- Posted by commonsensematters on Sun, Jul 22, 2012, at 12:12 PM
  • I just got to thinking. [I know, not something I do well:) Stiffling private investment in business theoreticly sends more money into government bonds allowing more printing and devaluation of the dollar that's used to pay off government debt. Not to worry, no inflation in our future, right?

    -- Posted by Old John on Sun, Jul 22, 2012, at 12:49 PM
  • Temporary waivers for 1 year were granted for coverage ceilings and for the administrative cost percentages. So what? Could it be that the ones that know the least, are complaining the most. .. -- Posted by commonsensematters on Sun, Jul 22, 2012, at 12:12 PM

    "Temporary" - funny. First the waivers were given to allow unions to continue "luxury" insurance plans without paying tax penalties on them. Second the waiver allowed the unions to continue their "high administrative costs percentages" - why? Regular insurance companies will have to give refunds for violating this. Unions get a pass. Why?

    Now who knows the least? I think you do. The hypocrisy you wear is evident - you push Obamacare onto the rest of the country then you support waivers out of the plan for liberal democrats. Hmmm.....

    -- Posted by not_sorry on Sun, Jul 22, 2012, at 1:48 PM
  • Nonsense. Ex post facto is latin for "after the fact". As a comment or in conversation it can be applied to any situation - not just criminal law. You know, like:

    "It sort of goes along with the 'no ex post facto laws' concept".

    "sort of"????

    -- Posted by not_sorry on Sun, Jul 22, 2012, at 3:02 PM
  • "Those changes have already been recognized, and they involve modifications to eligibility dates, percentages of payroll tax deducted, the percent of services covered, and additional co-pays. Necessary changes can be made without "gutting" the system."

    And you still have the same flawed system, costing the taxpayers more while providing less.

    -- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Sun, Jul 22, 2012, at 3:06 PM
  • "Nonsense. The Ex post facto prohibition only applies to criminal laws. See Calder vs. Bull."

    Nonsense. Calder vs. Bull deals with the passage of a law by the State legislature, as defined under Article 1, Secton 10. The Constitution's limitation on Congress, as specified in Article 1, Section 9, is not addressed.

    While the definition proposed in Calder vs. Bull is generally regarded as standing, it is worthy of note that Congress' legal authority is generally on the passage of laws other than criminal laws, and thus the separate and distinct prohibition against ex post facto laws upon them would (or should) apply to all laws, not just criminal laws.

    It is worth noting, for instance, that the 'grandfathering in' of such things as building codes and property restrictions is generally upheld as a recognition of the wrongful nature of such ex post facto rules, in spite Calder vs. Bull's definition.

    -- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Sun, Jul 22, 2012, at 3:31 PM
  • "The sentiment that ex post facto laws are against natural right is so strong in the United States, that few, if any, of the State constitutions have failed to proscribe them. The federal constitution indeed interdicts them in criminal cases only; but they are equally unjust in civil as in criminal cases, and the omission of a caution which would have been right, does not justify the doing what is wrong. Nor ought it to be presumed that the legislature meant to use a phrase in an unjustifiable sense, if by rules of construction it can be ever strained to what is just."

    -- Thomas Jefferson -

    -- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Sun, Jul 22, 2012, at 3:36 PM
  • No, I am of a different opinion than the court. The court issued an opinion, and I offer one of my own.

    The Thomas Jefferson quote, while referring again the powers of the states, notes that the mind of the founding fathers clearly pointed to no difference between the civil and the criminal law with regards to the application of ex post facto laws being against natural law.

    The difference is, you prefer to accept the thinking of other rather than doing your own. You always seem willing to bow to the superiors, and never question their opinions.

    As I've noted, there are few exceptions to the limitations on ex post facto laws, either civil or criminal, because they are, as Jefferson notes, contrary to natural law. The idea that the Congress can change the game in an effort to embarass Mr. Romney would and should be tossed out in court, if the bill were ever able to pass through the legislature. Mr. Romney entered the contest under the extant rules, and it is unconscionable that the Conress can change those rules in mid-contest.

    I noted a while back that the Senate can only change its rules at the opening of the session. That is, they cannot impose ex post facto rules, or change rules in mid-session. This was most recently challenged in the case of the filibuster debate. Every new Congress has the authority to change its rules, but every new Congress can only do so when sessions begin, such that they are obligated to comply with the same ruled throughout.

    So it is, or should be, with the candidacy rules.

    Mr. Romney entered the fray under the extant rules, and those rules should not be changed on a whim.

    -- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Sun, Jul 22, 2012, at 8:54 PM
  • -- Posted by Spaniard on Sun, Jul 22, 2012, at 8:27 PM

    These liberal responses get weaker by the day. Defending the indefensible is admirable but a losing cause. Nice try!

    -- Posted by not_sorry on Sun, Jul 22, 2012, at 9:10 PM
  • Assuming the Democrats huffing and puffing on this issue gets shut off in the House of Representatives.... what are you all going to do when Obummmer issues an executive order to that effect?

    -- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Mon, Jul 23, 2012, at 12:11 PM
  • Here is the way Obama uses intimidation tactics. What a worm.

    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390444464304577537233908744496.html?m...

    -- Posted by We Regret To Inform U on Mon, Jul 23, 2012, at 7:10 PM
  • I read it. Justice Chase repeatedly comments on it as a matter of opinion: "I will state what laws I consider ex post facto laws, within the words and the intent of the prohibition."

    He then refers to the Constitutions of various states which define them. However, those states do not use the term 'ex post facto' but rather refer to "those retrospective laws..." etc.

    The only law which he cites that actually uses the term 'ex post facto' is the reference to 2nd Lord Raymond:

    "In 2nd Lord Raymond 1352, Raymond, Justice, called the stat. 7 Geo. 1st. stat. 2 par 8, about registering Contracts for South Sea Stock, an ex post facto law; because it affected Contracts made before the statute."

    Clearly a matter of civil law.

    Justice Chase further states:

    "I am of opinion, that the fact, contemplated by the prohibition, and not to be affected by a subsequent law, was some fact to be done by a Citizen, or Subject."

    But clearly the mandatory presentation of the financial documents (contrary to the rights of persons to be secure in their persons and papers) is a fact to be committed as a requisite of candidacy, that candidacy already being a fact in the case of Mr. Romney).

    While on the subject, it is worth noting that signing away one's right to privacy with regards to one's persona and papers should be be a requisite of being elected to a position to safeguard those self-same rights.

    -- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Wed, Jul 25, 2012, at 2:22 PM
  • -- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Wed, Jul 25, 2012, at 2:30 PM
  • It's very clear that there is nothing in the wording of the Constitution that prohibits ex post facto laws in civil matters. To be sure, the Constitution prohibits clearly all ex post facto laws.

    Thus, the court in deciding Calder Vs. Bull, pointed to the lack of a definition of 'ex post facto' in the Constitution, and set out to define it for itself. It is, as they would say today, one of the earliest examples of judicial activism. Couple that with the court's heavy reliance on 'precedent', and you have an early example of bad law passed down through the ages by precedent, rather than the word of the law.

    What the court has done, in actuality, is not say that Constitution prohibits ex post facto laws in civil matters only, but rather that no civil law can be ex post facto. They rely for this on the definitions offered by three states, one example of which Justice Chase claims is erroneously defined. He then cites a much earlier example of the term ex post facto (rather than the term 'retrospective' frequently employed by the states) applied to civil law, but dismisses it as an anomaly.

    So the question does not revolve around whether the Constitution prohibits ex post facto laws in criminal matters only, but rather whether retrospective civil laws are, in fact, ex post facto. The justices in Calder vs. Bull do not believe that to be the case, but that is just their opinion. I heartily disagree, and I am hardly the first to do so.

    Interpretations of the Calder vs. Bull decision are frequently incorrect. The common interpretation is that the ruling applies the prohibition only to ex post fact laws that deal with criminal matters. That is inaccurate. The opinion of the court does not say it applies to this ex post facto law and not to that ex post facto law, what it does is to define 'ex post facto'. Wrongly, in my humble opinion.

    The justices hinge their opinion upon the strained definition of a 'fact' after which the law is passed. In civil matters, they argue, no fact exists, hence no law altering the fact can follow. This harbours on the definition of a 'fact'.

    In contract law, for example, the existence of a contract is a fact, and the existence of terms of the contract are factual. Thus, a law that nullifies a contract is permitted as a matter of fact, but a law which attempts to pretend that the contract never existed, or that alters the terms of the contract as they apply to a time prior to the passage of the law, is clearly ex post facto. This would appear to be the logic applied in the English Law case which Justice Chase chose to ignore.

    So, we are left to wallow in the Justice's interpretation of what is a 'fact' and what is not.

    ________

    I said it applied to the prohibition against the states because he primarily used the state's definitions (though not the state whose law was in question) to establish his own, and because he was deciding a case based on a state constitution. However, on second reading, it seems he applies that definition broadly to the term 'ex post facto' wherever it is used. Again, I think his defintion is wrong.

    Black's Law Dictionary defines it differently and more broadly:

    "A law passed after the occurrence of a fact or commission of an act, which retrospectively changes the legal consequences or relations of such' factor deed."

    -- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Fri, Jul 27, 2012, at 8:59 AM

Respond to this thread