Isn't the Telecom Immunity bill unconstitutional?

[Syrinx]

From the U.S. Constitution, Article 1, Section 9:

No bill of attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.

a form of ex post facto law commonly known as an amnesty law may decriminalize certain acts or alleviate possible punishments (for example by replacing the death sentence with life-long imprisonment) retrospectively.

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

[dchill]

1. Unconstitutional? Apparently.

But it wouldn't seem to matter. These days.

[HeraldSquare212]

2. Well, I think it's intended to mean that no ex post facto law can penalize someone.

You can't punish something for doing something was legal when you did it, but you can relieve someone from liability for doing something that was illegal when they did it. The Constitution (or that part of it and the Bill of Rights) was meant to protect people from government oppression, not ensure consistency in governing. I think.

[warren pease]

7. Looks like it applies both ways...

This according to Wiki:

Conversely, a form of ex post facto law commonly known as an amnesty law may decriminalize certain acts or alleviate possible punishments (for example by replacing the death sentence with life-long imprisonment) retrospectively.

Generally speaking, ex post facto laws are seen as a violation of the rule of law as it applies in a free and democratic society. Most common law jurisdictions do not permit retrospective legislation...

And there's this brief definition from the 'Lectric Law Library.

An ex post facto law is a law passed after the occurrence of an event or action which retrospectively changes the legal consequences of the event or action.

So it sounds like it's unconstitutional whether it criminalizes a formerly legal act or vice versa. Of course, this supreme court isn't interested in constitutionality; it's only interested in accelerating the onset of BushCo's dictatorship.


wp

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

3. Your name has been dutifully taken down. That is all.

[kanrok]

4. Ex post facto laws don't apply to civil cases, only criminal

There is a Supreme Court case out there from way back. I don't have the citation, but you can trust me on this one.

[warren pease]

8. Couldn't this be treated as a criminal or civil case, though?

Civil would be determining liability for violating a class' privacy; criminal would be for violating the Fourth Amendment?

However, not being a lawyer, I may well not know what the hell I'm talking about.


wp

[NoGOPZone]

9. You're right. Calder vs Bull, decided even before Marshall was CJ

Here's a cite

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0003_0386_ZO.html

[Crabby Appleton]

10. S.2248 - FISA Amendments Act of 2007

contains the following text which addresses limits on civil actions.


SEC. 202. LIMITATIONS ON CIVIL ACTIONS FOR ELECTRONIC COMMUNICATION SERVICE PROVIDERS.

(a) Limitations-

(1) IN GENERAL- Notwithstanding any other provision of law, a covered civil action shall not lie or be maintained in a Federal or State court, and shall be promptly dismissed, if the Attorney General certifies to the court that--

(A) the assistance alleged to have been provided by the electronic communication service provider was--

(i) in connection with an intelligence activity involving communications that was--

(I) authorized by the President during the period beginning on September 11, 2001, and ending on January 17, 2007; and

(II) designed to detect or prevent a terrorist attack, or activities in preparation for a terrorist attack, against the United States; and

(ii) described in a written request or directive from the Attorney General or the head of an element of the intelligence community (or the deputy of such person) to the electronic communication service provider indicating that the activity was--

(I) authorized by the President; and

(II) determined to be lawful; or

(B) the electronic communication service provider did not provide the alleged assistance.

(2) REVIEW- A certification made pursuant to paragraph (1) shall be subject to review by a court for abuse of discretion.

(b) Review of Certifications- If the Attorney General files a declaration under section 1746 of title 28, United States Code, that disclosure of a certification made pursuant to subsection (a) would harm the national security of the United States, the court shall--

(1) review such certification in camera and ex parte; and

(2) limit any public disclosure concerning such certification, including any public order following such an ex parte review, to a statement that the conditions of subsection (a) have been met, without disclosing the subparagraph of subsection (a)(1) that is the basis for the certification.

(c) Nondelegation- The authority and duties of the Attorney General under this section shall be performed by the Attorney General (or Acting Attorney General) or a designee in a position not lower than the Deputy Attorney General.

(d) Civil Actions in State Court- A covered civil action that is brought in a State court shall be deemed to arise under the Constitution and laws of the United States and shall be removable under section 1441 of title 28, United States Code.

[Guaranteed]

11. Right, and this isn't the same thing anyway. This is retroactive immunity,

rather than an after-the-fact imposition of liability.

One might still argue that this is unconstitutional on other bases, though.

[ThomWV]

5. What difference would that make to our current Senate, House, or Supreme Court?

Lawlessness, that is what we will have at the end of this.

[spanone]

6. no one in charge seems to give a flying f*ck about the constitution

[L. Coyote]

12. YES, but so was appointing BUSH Resident Executive in 2000! Any other questions?

[kath]

13. Eh. Constitution, Schmonstitution.

Almost no one in Congress gives a shit about the Constitution, even though they take a solemn oath to preserve and defend it.
:cry: :cry: :cry:

[MonkeyFunk]

14. No

First, it's civil, not criminal. Second, removing or reducing potential punishments is allowed. You just can't INCREASE them or retroactively create a crime where none existed before.