On Thu, 2008-07-10 at 06:25 -0700, Daniel Stasinski wrote:
> > 2008/7/10 keith smith <klsmith2020@yahoo.com>:
> > Here is a bit of a twist. Something learned about in High School, Ex post
> > facto laws are in violation of the US Constitution.
>
> Not always. Example: When the previous president took office, he
> raised taxes AND he made them retroactive to the previous year's
> filing (the year BEFORE he was even elected), so even if you had fully
> paid, you now owed even more back taxes. Yes, this is Ex post facto
> but the courts said that since someone else had gotten away with doing
> the same thing, it was now okay. Precedent had been set. Courts are
> more likely to side with precedent than constitution when the two
> clash. It's really not in the government's interest to protect your
> constitutional rights since they tend to get in the way of progress.
So what you're saying here is that the "Brotherhood of Justice"
supersedes the letter of the law? Kinda like blood is thicker than
water...
---------------------------------------------------
PLUG-discuss mailing list -
PLUG-discuss@lists.plug.phoenix.az.us
To subscribe, unsubscribe, or to change your mail settings:
http://lists.PLUG.phoenix.az.us/mailman/listinfo/plug-discuss
(text/plain)