Constitution, Article I, section 9: No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.

[Bolo Boffin]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ex_post_facto_law

Retroactive immunity is a prime example of an ex post facto law.

What Bush should do is just pardon these companies. What is this desperate need of his to get Congress to sign off on this?

ETA: Well, that will teach me to trust the Wikipedia. Making a criminal act an innocent one has long been established as U.S. Law.

http://www.michaelariens.com/ConLaw/cases/calder.htm

[Patsy Stone]

1. It's Congress' desperate need

to cover its ass.

[Rick Myers]

2. This bill should NOT be allowed to stand!!!

Retroactive immunity???

WTF?

If this bill passes, the experiment has failed...

[Bolo Boffin]

6. I still agree that the bill should not be allowed to stand

Retroactive immunity isn't blocked by the Constitution, though.

[Warren Stupidity]

3. No it isn't.

It is in fact the exact opposite of the constitutional restriction on making past behavior illegal. While I despise the immunity, it is not unconstitutional to grant immunity for past misdeeds, it is unconstitutional to pass a law making past deeds illegal.

[Bolo Boffin]

4. Yes, I've been digging around and found Calder v. Bull

But I do not consider any law ex post facto, within the prohibition, that mollifies the rigor of the criminal law; but only those that create, or aggravate, the crime; or encrease the punishment, or change the rules of evidence, for the purpose of conviction. Every law that is to have an operation before the making thereof, as to commence at an antecedent time; or to save time from the statute of limitations; or to excuse acts which were unlawful, and before committed, and the like; is retrospective. But such laws may be proper or necessary, as the case may be. There is a great and apparent difference between making an UNLAWFUL act LAWFUL; and the making an innocent action criminal, and punishing it as a CRIME.

Making a criminal act an innocent one is not an ex post facto law, not in America.

[Zodiak]

7. Yup. you got it

Our laws were originally written to err on the side of criminals go to ensure that ALL were promised their rights.

Ex post facto only stops you from jailing people for past offenses that were previously legal.

[msongs]

5. no we are all supposed to forget the constitution & sing kumbaya together :-) nt

[crankychatter]

8. it WAS illegal and it's STILL illegal... the immunity, applies to Civil Liability

Correct me if I'm wrong. There are MANY current lawsuits endeavoring to litigate for redress of these offenses on their face; but MORE, discover the precise mechanism of the offenses, to bring it ALL fully into the public eye.

It's this discovery the Bush administration is so adamant to block, for it's own self-protection. Congress is now complicit, yielding to the spin machine's assertion that this is a "National Security" issue.

Unless Keith Olberman was wrong this evening, it's entirely possible that a "President Obama" could investigate and prosecute under criminal statutes.

No? Yes?

You tell me.