We weren't talking about when the law was passed, which is sort of the problem. The claim was that this was an ex post facto law without even considering when it was passed. In other words, that any application of this law at any time would be a violation of the ex post facto clause, even if it had already been on the books at the time of the original conviction. My response was that this showed a lack of understanding of the meaning of "ex post facto".

Again, this is a completely different argument. I gather that you grant that this law would be unambiguously not in violation of the ex post facto clause assuming it had been on the books at the time of the criminal act. However, even if it had not been, and were only passed during the prison sentence, it would still not be in violation. Whether or not you can prevent yourself from being covered by a new law going forward has nothing to do with whether it is an ex post facto law or not. I reiterate that it is only a violation of the ex post facto clause if it specifically enhances the punishment for a crime that has already been committed. Since this is a civil law, and hence requires a separate civil action and the finding of a judge, it is not covered. The issue of ex post facto doesn't even come up.

The law could have been passed even after conviction and sentencing and it would still be applicable. This is because to be a violation of the ex post facto clause, it must specifically criminalize or increase the punishment for an act committed prior to the passage of the law. So, for example, registration requirements for previously convicted sex offenders have been specifically held NOT to be violations of the ex post facto clause, because they don't provide for any punishment. Likewise, this law doesn't provide for further punishment under the legal meaning of the term. It only states that if you are 1) currently in federal custody for a sex offense, and 2) can be shown to a judge's satisfaction to be dangerous, you can be held until you are no longer considered dangerous. The key element here is that it requires an entirely new civil action and the subsequent finding of a judge. That is what, under the law as it is generally understood, prevents it from being a violation of the ex post facto clause.

Exactly. And that has nothing to do with what you're talking about. Under your absurd interpretation, "three strikes" laws would be considered ex post facto, because they enhance the sentence for the third strike based solely on prior acts.

From Wikipedia: An ex post facto law (from the Latin for "from after the action") or retroactive law, is a law that retroactively changes the legal consequences (or status) of actions committed or relationships that existed prior to the enactment of the law. (emphasis added)

By definition, an "ex post facto" law can only apply to crimes committed prior to the enactment of the law. If the law is on the books when the crime is committed, it absolutely cannot be considered ex post facto.

But this is still irrelevant to the point. Let me break this down for you a bit more simply. If Congress were to pass a law saying that everyone who owns a gun must register it within ten days, and prescribes criminal penalties for failure to do so, would that be an ex post facto law? No, because meeting the conditions of the law--1) having a gun and 2) not registering it--is a discrete set of events, all of which occur simultaneously AFTER the passage of the law (the fact that the gun was purchased prior to the registration requirement is irrelevant, because the law doesn't reference "buying" a gun, but rather "owning" one). If the law instead said anybody who owned a gun within the last ten years, and did not register it within ten days of receiving it has committed a crime, that WOULD be an ex post facto law and would be unconstitutional.

Similarly, if Congress passed a law saying that all sex offenders who were previously convicted automatically have their sentences extended, that would be an ex post facto increase in punishment and prohibited. That is not what is happening here. The law simply says that any person who meets the conditions, namely that 1) the person is currently in federal custody for a sex related crime and 2) is believed to be "dangerous" if released, can be held indefinitely on the finding of a judge that those conditions are both true, based on an entirely new civil action. So being in custody for a sex-related crime is merely one of two necessary elements that, when combined, trigger an action under another, separate law. The punishment for the original crime is specifically not increased. But even if it were, it would STILL not be an ex post facto law, unless the act authorizing the sentence increase had not been passed when the crime was committed. If it had already been passed at that time, it's fair game. The ONLY time it can be invalid under the ex post facto clause is if the law enhancing the sentence had not yet been passed at the time of the commission of the crime.

You could make the argument that it violates due process to hold people in custody indefinitely based on a civil action. You could also argue that the potential for indefinite custody represents cruel and unusual punishment. But claiming it's an ex post facto law makes about as much sense as invoking the Third Amendment in this instance. It just shows you don't know what you're talking about.

Ah, yes, the long-winded "I Know Better Than All of The Liars Running The Government What The Law Actually Says" rant.

Incidentally, you seem to keep (purposely?) missing the point that I agree with you (and Justices Thomas and Scalia) that this is not a legitimate use of government power and is not something authorized by the Constitution. What I take exception to is your persistent and bizarre misuse of Constitutional provisions that you clearly do not understand. It took me all of ten seconds to prove your statement that ex post facto laws have "NOTHING to do with when the law was passed" was flat out wrong. If you really want to help curb government abuses of power, the best thing you can do would be to exercise your right to remain silent. It doesn't help those of us who genuinely understand the issues to have our cause associated with blatantly ignorant conspiracy theory types.

Again, the prohibition against ex post facto laws only applies to when the law was PASSED, and only if it's a different punishment for the same offense. If the law had been amended to extend the sentence for a sex crime, the new sentence could not apply to people previously convicted under the old law. However, this is a separate law entirely. In order to be committed under this statute, the government needs to show to a judge's satisfaction that a person qualifies under the law to be held in custody. Specifically, that person must be 1) already in federal custody for a sex offense, and 2) likely to be a danger if released. Any person who can be shown to meet these two qualifications can be held under the new law, regardless of the specific crime for which you are in custody. It's the same as if the government sought to keep someone in custody because he had developed schizophrenia or some other mental illness for which you can be held in custody under a civil statute. You may not like the conditions, but calling it an ex post facto law shows you don't really understand what the term means and what it ACTUALLY applies to. I'll give you a hint: nowhere in the Supreme Court decision, or even in the arguments, was the possibility even raised of this law being invalid under the ex post facto clause.

Well, no. You can violate your probation based on some activity that is otherwise completely legal. For example, drinking while on probation for a drunk driving conviction, or entering a school while on probation for child molestation. Your punishment is increased for the original crime, not the new violation specifically. And as far as starting a fight in prison, you don't need to be tried and convicted to be sent to solitary as an enhancement to your existing punishment. That is a power authorized to the warden by the legislature, and it is solely up to his discretion how to administer it. You don't get an appeal from his decision. In fact, "starting a fight" isn't even necessarily a crime. It's not illegal to use a racist epithet against someone to his face, but if it's in an attempt to incite prison violence, then it can be punished regardless. The point of all of this is that punishments CAN and ARE increased after conviction based on events subsequent to the conviction. And anyway, this is all irrelevant, because once again (and please try to understand this) ex post facto only deals with the passage of new laws, not the subsequent application of existing ones. The closest thing to what you're describing is double jeopardy, which again, doesn't apply here anyway because it's not a second punishment for the same offense (and other court decisions have specifically held that to be the case, so don't even try).

Stop and think about how foolish you sound here. Under that logic, "criminals" is a class of people, and you can't pass a law that puts them in jail. Also, you're being disingenuous in not quoting the rest of the paragraph where I specifically state that "sex offenders" doesn't count, because ANYONE could potentially be convicted of a sex crime. A bill of attainder would be, for example, a law that makes it a crime to be named "David Johnson" or to live at 123 Main St. in Chicago. Laws that are based on specific actions, like committing a sex crime, are not covered.

The duration of custody is increased consequent to the fact that you are judged to be dangerous, not just that you were convicted. You are given your due process when a judge authorizes the commitment. Just like if you were judged to be mentally insane and committed involuntarily. You may not feel like that is adequate due process for the degree of authority the government claims. I agree with you on that, but it wasn't the issue the court decided in this case.

I suggest you admit that your legal "knowledge" is based primarily on what you WANT the Constitution to say, and not what it is actually agreed to mean.

Sorry, no. "Ex post facto" has nothing to do with increasing the punishment after conviction. It refers specifically to declaring something illegal, then prosecuting somebody under that law based on conduct that occurred before the law was passed. Regardless, punishment is increased after conviction and sentencing all the time. Violate the terms of your probation? Straight to the slammer. Start a fight in prison? You get sent to solitary. And so on.

Let's address some of the other things you may be misinformed about. This is not a bill of attainder, because it doesn't address specific people or groups of people. And no, the "group" of people who are in prison doesn't count, because potentially ANYBODY could be in prison for some other crime. If the bill stated that it only applied to black people, or people named Steve, then it would not be permissible. It's also (arguably) not a due process violation, because since it is a civil punishment and not a criminal one, the standard is lower than what is necessary to convict a person of a crime and send him to prison. You still need to convince a judge under this law, so there is still a due process issue. But the Supreme Court specifically did not address that in this case.

What's at issue here is ultimately whether the United States, given the authority to imprison somebody for a crime, can indefinitely extend that time under a civil statute based on a showing to a judge that it is necessary. This is not legally any different from the authority to put somebody in solitary confinement, or deny access to privileges based on behavior. I'm not comfortable with the ruling in this case, and I agree with Justices Thomas and Scalia that this is an inappropriate extension of government power. But please get your facts and legal terminology straight before going off half-cocked based on your limited legal understanding.

Huh? That wasn't it at all, but now that you point it out, it is sort of a strange coincidence...

Of course, some postings might even be tortious.

The occasional posting may well be tortuous, but the vast majority of postings on the Internet are torturous. Check out MySpace and Facebook to see what I mean.

That may be the best euphemism for masturbation I've ever heard. It was even worth reading through your nauseatingly detailed description of your chode for.

Best. RPG Game. Ever.

That reminds me... I need to head down to the ATM machine and punch in my PIN number so I can select the amount of cash that I need on the LCD display.

(Incidentally, I note that Idle still has a 20 character wide comment input box. I guess the CSS style sheet must be screwed up.)

"we don't do that. The patent says X, we don't do X, therefore go away, sue someone else, it's not relevant for us."

"Look... me and the McDonald's people got this little misunderstanding. See, they're McDonald's... I'm McDowell's. They got the Golden Arches, mine is the Golden Arcs. They got the Big Mac, I got the Big Mick. We both got two all-beef patties, special sauce, lettuce, cheese, pickles and onions, but their buns have sesame seeds. My buns have no seeds."

1) You weren't granted the "right to pursue happiness".
2) That "right" isn't mentioned in the United States Constitution.

The Declaration of Independence states that "the pursuit of happiness" is one of the inalienable Rights endowed to men by their Creator. The Declaration of Independence, however, carries very little legal weight in itself. Anyway, the government doesn't really give a damn about how happy you are. You may be born with the right to pursue happiness, but ain't nothin' says you're entitled to actually find it.

And even if there were a Constitutional right to "pursue happiness", your legal reasoning is faulty. It is well established that businesses have the right to refuse service to anybody for any reason, except on the basis of discrimination against a protected class of people. And phone hackers most certainly do not fall into any such class.

Well, they should have no problem at all finding the mountain wampus now. I just hope the project doesn't get canceled when they run low on smithore.

I find it amazing that people can stare right at numbers and come up with contorted reasoning why the numbers can't possibly say what they actually say. Try taking a look at the study. You will find that, of the accidents in this time period, only 1% were the result of driver inattention. That means that, for 99% of all accidents, there was some other identifiable cause. And of the 1%, only 10% were related to cell phone use. That means that the other 90% were explained by some other factor. It's not like they just look at these accidents, and if they can't figure out the cause write down "unknown" and move on.

So, again, please use your half a brain and think about this. Even if there were somehow TEN TIMES as many actual accidents as were reported that were caused by cell phone use, that still wouldn't be a statistically significant number of accidents if you're trying to detect a year to year trend. Even if it were twenty or thirty times higher, it still would be hard to establish a trend. This is exactly what the current study shows--that there is no significant change in accident rates with the passage of cell phone laws.

If you truly believe that cell phone accidents are under-reported by a factor large enough to matter statistically, well, I'd like to see some numbers backing that contention up. But you can't--all you have is anecdotal evidence and your poor half a brain. The same half a brain that makes it "obvious" that cell phone use while driving is dangerous also apparently makes it "obvious" that the numbers MUST be lying. It's kind of like a religion to you, isn't it?

Forget the "studies" that result in cute sound bites like "talking on a cell phone is like driving drunk". Let's look at some good, hard numbers: DRIVER DISTRACTIONS AND INATTENTION DATA SUMMARY

The key info is on page 5. From January 1, 2002 to June 30, 2002 in California, there were 491,083 accidents. Of those, cell phones were only considered a factor in 611 of them. That works out to about 0.1% of all accidents. Even if we (generously) assume such accidents are somehow under-reported by a factor of ten (which is extremely unlikely, since driver inattention was only considered a factor in 1% of all accidents in that time period), that's no more than 1% of all accidents. That's well within the margin of error for year to year fluctuations. There's no way a ban on cell phone use in cars could have any statistically significant effect on accident numbers.

"But, but, I've see people on cell phones who were bad drivers!" Yeah, and I've seen plenty of bad drivers who weren't on cell phones. Does cell phone usage cause bad driving? I don't know. Maybe bad drivers are more likely to use cell phones. But do cell phones cause accidents? The numbers just don't support that conclusion.

the Delta Works and the Afsluitdijk

I've heard of some crazy Scandinavian names, but come on. That's just somebody banging on the keyboard. Next you're going to tell me about the famed Swedish Lkajadsfglkn.