Quote:
Originally Posted by PochoPatriot
My response was a bit too flippant
Well, there is one tiny little problem...ex post facto. It's in that silly document called the Constitution. Justice Chase in Calder v Bull (3 US 386 [1798], defined the first aspect of ex post facto as:
I am all for changing the law to stop future illegal immigration. However, dealing with those that are already here is a bit more sticky.
|
I don't believe it would be ex-post facto to interpret the law. If it was a new law, that would be different.