Ex post facto (US law)

Name
Email
Subject
Comment
Ponymotes
File
Flags	Spoiler Image NSFW Image
Embed
Password	(For file deletion.)

Ex post facto (US law) Precious Cat 05/04/22 (Wed) 22:25:59 No.11074

File: 1651703159203.jpg (100.6 KB, 800x640, 5:4, Supreme_Court_Front_Dusk.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

Hypothetical: A law is passed in 1900.
In 1910, the court rules the law unconstitutional.
After 1910, people violate this currently unconstitutional law in ways that leave evidence, but the state will not punish.
In 1950, the law is judged constitutional again.

Are those violations from the past now subject to prosecution since the law is constitutional? The law was broken after it was passed, so this is not a clear ex post facto situation.

Sweet Panda 05/05/22 (Thu) 00:39:19 No.11077

In 1910, the law effectively ceased to exist, so no.

Mellow Eagle 05/05/22 (Thu) 00:44:30 No.11079

No because >>11077

Precious Cat 05/07/22 (Sat) 22:20:38 No.11089

>>11077
>>11079
OK, so any judgement that a law is unconstitutional nullifies it forever. In particular, if abortion is to be crime, when and if the federal supreme court decides states have the choice, new laws will be required to be created in the states. Thank you.

Kind Tiger 05/07/22 (Sat) 23:22:15 No.11090

>>11089
Probably not new laws, but the charges would need be after the changed decisions.

Lackadaisical Grasshopper 05/07/22 (Sat) 23:28:38 No.11091

>>11089
Ok you're trying to answer hardcore constitutional law questions that are going to be up for serious legal debate for years with some middle school civics.

Enchanting Gorilla 05/08/22 (Sun) 06:58:59 No.11093

>>11091
Are you arguing with Sweet Panda and/or Mellow Eagle's answer or my restatement of their answers?