Article I, Section 8: No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed

glenn greenwald points out that a previous attempt to enact retroactive immunity legislation was thoroughly and effectively quashed by both a u.s. senator, robert f. kennedy, and the united states attorney general at the time, nicholas katzenbach...

The very idea of "retroactive immunity" for lawbreaking corporations is so radical, so repugnant to the most basic principles of the "rule of law," that only one prior attempt can be found in recent history (at least from my research): the efforts by some in Congress in 1965 to enact a law retroactively legalizing the mergers by six large banks which clearly -- as a federal court found -- were illegal under our nation's antitrust laws.

[...]

Just as now, the lawbreaking banks insisted that they must be protected from the devastating consequences of their lawbreaking -- claims that Kennedy and Katzenbach easily destroyed. After all, the banks -- like the telecoms now -- were the ones who chose to break the law, knowing that it was illegal, because they perceived there to be great economic benefit in doing so. To then grant them amnesty would be to reward lawbreaking.

i posed this question to glenn greenwald...

isn't retroactive immunity also unconstitutional...? according to the meaning of "ex post facto Law" as contained in Article I, Section 9 of the Constitution...

Ex post facto

ex post facto adj. Formulated, enacted, or operating retroactively. [Med Lat., from what is done afterwards] Source: AHD

In U.S. Constitutional Law, the definition of what is ex post facto is more limited. The first definition of what exactly constitutes an ex post facto law is found in Calder v Bull (3 US 386 [1798]), in the opinion of Justice Chase:

1st. Every law that makes an action done before the passing of the law, and which was innocent when done, criminal; and punishes such action. 2d. Every law that aggravates a crime, or makes it greater than it was, when committed. 3d. Every law that changes the punishment, and inflicts a greater punishment, than the law annexed to the crime, when committed. 4th. Every law that alters the legal rules of evidence, and receives less, or different, testimony, than the law required at the time of the commission of the offense, in order to convict the offender.

i realize that it is the exact opposite of the stipulation in "1st" that would apply here ["Every law that makes an action done before the passing of the law, and which was innocent criminal when done, criminal innocent; and punishes exonerates such action], but it would seem to me that passing a law guaranteeing retroactive immunity would violate the spirit if not the letter of Article I, Section 9... what say you...?

i will keep an eye out to see if he responds and post the answer here as an update...

Submit To Propeller
Tweet