Spy Bill Debate Comes to an End

[Daniel Stasinski]

> 2008/7/10 keith smith <klsmith2020 at 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.

Daniel
-- 
| ---------------------------------------------------------------
| Daniel P. Stasinski | http://www.saidsimple.com
| mooooooo at avenues.org | http://www.disabilities-r-us.com
| XMMP: mooooooo at avenues.org | http://www.avenues.org
| Google Talk: mooooooo | http://www.scriptkitties.com