tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5194776.post115518567389526938..comments2023-11-05T23:25:31.498+11:00Comments on Wot Is It Good 4: champaignUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5194776.post-1155406776550684982006-08-13T04:19:00.000+10:002006-08-13T04:19:00.000+10:00Damien:Yuuuuuuum!Damien:<BR/><BR/>Yuuuuuuum!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5194776.post-1155190405646196632006-08-10T16:13:00.000+10:002006-08-10T16:13:00.000+10:00Len Hart has a number of terrific posts on US law ...<A HREF="http://existentialistcowboy.blogspot.com" REL="nofollow">Len Hart</A> has a <A HREF="http://search.blogger.com/?as_q=ex+poste+facto&ie=UTF-8&ui=blg&bl_url=existentialistcowboy.blogspot.com&x=36&y=7" REL="nofollow">number</A> of terrific posts on US law and Bush war crimes.<BR/><BR/>He quotes <A HREF="http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.articlei.html" REL="nofollow">Article I, Section 8, US Constitution</A>: <STRONG><EM>"No bill of attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed."</EM></STRONG>. That's black letter law. Ex post facto legislation is against the Constitution. Period.<BR/><BR/>He <A HREF="http://existentialistcowboy.blogspot.com/2006/07/gop-tries-to-let-bush-off-hook-to-make.html" REL="nofollow">also</A> notes that "Congress does not have the authority to reverse a decision of the supreme court"- specifically in <A HREF="http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=000&invol=05-184" REL="nofollow">Hamdan v Rumsfeld</A>.<BR/><BR/>Supreme Court Justices can be removed by "Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors." Since their oath of office obliges them to uphold provisions of the Constitution, any failure to uphold an explicit provision such as Article I, Section 8 would certainly constitute a "high Crime or Misdemeanor". The fact that no SCJ has ever been impeached should not stand in the way here.(<A HREF="http://www.supremecourthistory.org/03_how/subs_how/03_a17.html" REL="nofollow">link</A>)<BR/><BR/>I imagine the American Bar Association would have something to say along these lines.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com