Reply #4: This is a reversal of what the original intent was [View All]

[Tab]

and so it makes for an interesting question.

The original intent, obviously, would be to avoid getting people in trouble for doing something legal by passing a law after the fact prohibiting that action.

For instance, let's say you flew a kite at the beach every weekend. The following Monday a law is passed making it illegal to fly kites at the beach. Tuesday an officer knocks on your door to arrest you, saying they have witnesses that saw you flying a kite last weekend (before the law was passed and while it was still legal).

You are talking the reverse - retroactive decriminalizing.

I would say maybe technically yes, but this country has plenty of precedence for the opposite. First, few juries are going to convict for something that's not even illegal anymore. Second, it's on the order of amnesty - we've granted amnesty for many things in the past, things that were illegal at the point in time where they were committed. Whether congress can grant amnesty via a law, or the president has to do it, I'm not sure, but basically what you are talking about is amnesty (freedom from prosecution for past actions) for the phone companies.