Ex post facto applies only to criminal cases - sorry Patek and Cali!

Discussion in 'Law and Justice System' started by SpidermanTuba, May 13, 2010.

  1. SpidermanTuba
    Offline

    SpidermanTuba BANNED

    Joined:
    May 7, 2004
    Messages:
    6,101
    Thanks Received:
    258
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    New Orleans, Louisiana
    Ratings:
    +258
    Calder v Bull (1798)

    Calder v. Bull


    But I guess its just because of that super liberal activist court of 1798!
     
  2. Baruch Menachem
    Offline

    Baruch Menachem '

    Joined:
    Sep 12, 2008
    Messages:
    14,204
    Thanks Received:
    3,235
    Trophy Points:
    185
    Ratings:
    +3,305
    I think Marshall was wrong.

    but that is just one man's opinion.

    And the constitution does not make that distinction in the original text.
     
  3. SpidermanTuba
    Offline

    SpidermanTuba BANNED

    Joined:
    May 7, 2004
    Messages:
    6,101
    Thanks Received:
    258
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    New Orleans, Louisiana
    Ratings:
    +258


    Uhhh, Marshall wasn't even on the court when the ruling was made.
     
  4. Wry Catcher
    Offline

    Wry Catcher Platinum Member

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2009
    Messages:
    31,761
    Thanks Received:
    4,242
    Trophy Points:
    1,160
    Location:
    San Francisco Bay Area
    Ratings:
    +8,161
    Nice talking point. Nor does the Constitution define a corporation as an individual, a clerk did - what is your point?
     

Share This Page