If you had a time machine???

When the justice system does something the constitution deems illegal, it doesn't make it legal.

A police officer arresting a peaceful protestor doesn't make free speech illegal. Constitutional infractions happen all the time. Infractions don't ammend the constitution.

I think what's happening in those cases is that the judge doesn't care because they deem the offender too dangerous or reprehensible. Kind of like with Johnson. Except in many of those cases I'm sure the judge is in the right.

Again, the contradictions of the system.

 

Not sure what you mean here.

 

You're making an argument.
Just like the one a prosecutor or lawyer would use depending on which side you were on.
For example: http://www.foxnews.com/us/2017/01/13/attorney-dc-sniper-life-sentence-unconstitutional.html
It's up to a jury or a judge to decide. Human beings. With all their biases, personal experiences and other minutia.

Also do you know which laws contradict that article of the constitution?
Because I believe it was the manner in which the prosecution was carried out that falls into question.
Not the law that was broken.

 

It's written in the constitution.

No. His prosecution was illegal for other reasons as well.

Name one law that contradicts post de facto.
Congress is prohibited from passing post de facto laws.
So are states.

The cases you refer to, the court argues against the post de facto argument by noting that the crime doesn't come with a punishment. In every single one of those cases, the case was not a criminally punishable one.

Johnsons crime came with a punishment, so none of the super rare outlier examples pertain here.

100% illegal.

 

Lol none of those examples come with a punishment. There is no precedent for post de facto with punishment in the history of our country. Johnsons arrest was post de facto and came with a punishment.

What are you talking about? He could easily been prosecuted illegally and still needs a pardon to clear his record.

Who's arguing how constitutional the Mann Act is? We're talking about detaining people for commiting a crime they hadn't been passed until after it was committed.

Do you not understand the difference? It could be the Mann Act or a stop sign. You can't arrest someone after the law goes into effect if the accused did the crime beforehand.

 

Why don't you two make up your own thread on the topic of the Mann Law!

I'd tell Greb to film a fight or two or three.

I'd tell Duran he'd better be serious about getting into the ring with Hearns and
not joke around about it. Maybe even train a few days.

 

I'd go to 1878 and show Sullivan pics of his later life and then tell him to stop drinking and focus on training.

 

That's completely different than plucking someone off the street and jailing them for eating ice cream before it was banned.

Do you understand how the legality of post humous appeals work? Are those even a thing? On what basis is it easier than getting a pardon?

Are you sure they didn't pursue the post de facto route? I bet not? So you're hedging the legality of this case on many flimsy uncertainties.

You know what's illegal? Imprisoning innocent citizens. Guess what, it happens all the damn time! And using your logic, that fact vindicates the imprisonment. Because "Well it's illegal, but it happens, so it's not illegal. 100% legal!"

lol, *shrug*

 

take a camera and film the 19th century fights