Assistant Prof. of Law Evan C. Zoldan at the University of Toledo College of Law wrote a nearly 60-page research paper called "The Civil Ex Post Facto Clause" on 7/23/14 but revised it nearly 16 months later.
On its Social Science Research Network page, the Abstract says the following:
"Since its first interpretation of the Ex Post Facto Clause in Calder v. Bull, the Supreme Court consistently has held that the clause applies only to retroactive criminal, but not civil, laws. The consequences of this distinction are far-ranging, permitting, for example, states to keep offenders behind bars after they have served their sentences. The Court’s distinction between civil and criminal retroactivity is based wholly on Calder’s historical conclusion that the original meaning of the Ex Post Facto Clause included criminal laws only. This article demonstrates that Calder’s historical analysis is wrong."
Congress is often lobbied by media companies (the House of Mouse is perhaps the most noteworthy), several of whom built their empire using the public domain, to retroactively extend the copyright of older works from that company. I'm planning to eventually to write to a local Congress rep such term extensions violate the ex post facto prohibition (being under the civil angle). However, such a letter will be will be years in the making. Obviously, I would also want to get the opinions of legal experts that share that view.
The way I would want to go down is something like this: a number of legal experts find evidence that the Framers intended for ex post facto to include civil decisions. After testifying before Congress, 2/3 Congress agrees that civil should apply. When this goes to SCOTUS, all of these old folk disagree. SCOTUS then realizes they were wrong and ex post facto includes civil. The major news outlets (CNN, Fox News, etc.) report this. The House of Mouse loses the original copyright to "Steamboat Willie" (along with the other 3 original Mickey Mouse shorts) and all Disney films that would have been public domain years ago but isn't.
TL;DR: What are some web articles (up to 10 pages if printed out) that have evidence that when the Framers wrote this part of the Constitution, they intended for it to also apply to civil? Evidence could include essays that talk about surviving written correspondences that said something like (in the English they spoke then) "contrary to what the Supreme Court has ruled, our intent for banning ex post facto includes civil".
Given that there are some folks who probably have a better understanding than SCOTUS on aspects of the Constitution, that is a reason I ask.
On its Social Science Research Network page, the Abstract says the following:
"Since its first interpretation of the Ex Post Facto Clause in Calder v. Bull, the Supreme Court consistently has held that the clause applies only to retroactive criminal, but not civil, laws. The consequences of this distinction are far-ranging, permitting, for example, states to keep offenders behind bars after they have served their sentences. The Court’s distinction between civil and criminal retroactivity is based wholly on Calder’s historical conclusion that the original meaning of the Ex Post Facto Clause included criminal laws only. This article demonstrates that Calder’s historical analysis is wrong."
Congress is often lobbied by media companies (the House of Mouse is perhaps the most noteworthy), several of whom built their empire using the public domain, to retroactively extend the copyright of older works from that company. I'm planning to eventually to write to a local Congress rep such term extensions violate the ex post facto prohibition (being under the civil angle). However, such a letter will be will be years in the making. Obviously, I would also want to get the opinions of legal experts that share that view.
The way I would want to go down is something like this: a number of legal experts find evidence that the Framers intended for ex post facto to include civil decisions. After testifying before Congress, 2/3 Congress agrees that civil should apply. When this goes to SCOTUS, all of these old folk disagree. SCOTUS then realizes they were wrong and ex post facto includes civil. The major news outlets (CNN, Fox News, etc.) report this. The House of Mouse loses the original copyright to "Steamboat Willie" (along with the other 3 original Mickey Mouse shorts) and all Disney films that would have been public domain years ago but isn't.
TL;DR: What are some web articles (up to 10 pages if printed out) that have evidence that when the Framers wrote this part of the Constitution, they intended for it to also apply to civil? Evidence could include essays that talk about surviving written correspondences that said something like (in the English they spoke then) "contrary to what the Supreme Court has ruled, our intent for banning ex post facto includes civil".
Given that there are some folks who probably have a better understanding than SCOTUS on aspects of the Constitution, that is a reason I ask.
