Pro-8 people want to nullify all same-sex mariages

[justapixel]

Re: Pro-8 people want to nullify all same-sex mari

An ex post facto effect would be to change the tax rate for a previous year, after the tax is paid. The hell if I know what justapixel is trying to claim.

Lets try another example for you. This one will be easier to understand.

It is from Wiki.

However, not all laws with ex post facto effects have been found to be unconstitutional. One current U.S. law that has an ex post facto effect is the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006. This law, which imposes new registration requirements on already convicted sex offenders, gives the United States Attorney General the authority to apply the law retroactively.[1] The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Smith v. Doe (2003) that forcing sex offenders to register their whereabouts at regular intervals and the posting of personal information about them on the Internet does not violate the constitutional prohibition against ex post facto laws, because compulsory registration of offenders who completed their sentences before new laws requiring compliance went into effect does not constitute a punishment.[2]

A large "exception" to the ex post facto prohibition can be found in administrative law, as federal agencies may apply their rules retroactively if Congress has authorized them to do so. Retroactive application is disfavored by the courts for a number of reasons,[3] but Congress may grant agencies this authority through express statutory provision. Furthermore, when an agency engages in adjudication, it may apply its own policy goals and interpretation of statutes retroactively, even if it has not formally promulgated a rule on a subject.

Gay marriage can be nullified.

 

[Kulindahr]

Re: Pro-8 people want to nullify all same-sex mari

Then the following is true:

Didn't they get away with gay marriage nullification because they were still married?

No, because some accounting practices allow for retroactive applications of rule changes so long as it's within the same tax year. For citizens, that means the I.R.S. doesn't care what rules you're using, so long as you apply them all year long.

 

[Kulindahr]

Re: Pro-8 people want to nullify all same-sex mari

That ruling about sex offenders is unjust; it's nothing but a "civilized" version of the Salem witch trials. It relies on the principle that any convicted sex offender is a continual danger -- which is ironic, because all states require treatment... a matter that gets into more politics, because the standard program selected was chosen not on merits but by special-interest influence.

The courts are crazy, helping us along to a police state, by allowing any ex post facto at all, even the slightest, even the appearance of one. If they can suppress freedom of speech in order to avoid "the appearance of corruption", they can uphold civil liberties to avoid the appearance of oppression -- and that should be the default position.

But in California they can get away with it; on a number of occasions the state and various municipalities have gotten away with ex post facto by changing the rules in midstream and applying them backwards to the administrative year. That's akin to how King Louis went after the Order of the Templars.

 

[glo-unit]

Re: Pro-8 people want to nullify all same-sex mari

I know I'm gonna get slammed for this. But the majority has spoken. I believe in the will of the majority.

It's called Democracy.

The US isn't a Democracy it's a Constitutional Republic.

ETA
sorry for beating a dead horse everyone else.

 

[Jory]

Re: Pro-8 people want to nullify all same-sex mari

I know I'm gonna get slammed for this. But the majority has spoken. I believe in the will of the majority.

It's called Democracy.

Ever heard of Tyranny of the majority?

 

[Kulindahr]

Re: Pro-8 people want to nullify all same-sex mari

Your water fountain is over there.

Ouch.

I could be wrong but didn't Bill Clinton in 1993 or 1994 or something change the tax laws and apply them retroactively? I remeber reading once.

Yeah -- go above to JustaPixel's post, #30.