printThe federal and state governments operate increasingly on an unconstitutional, ex post facto basis. What does this mean? It means that despite the U.S. Constitution, Article 1 Section 9, in particular—it states that “No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed”—actions are often criminalized after they are committed.
In any case, it is unconstitutional to criminalize actions that were legal when committed.
It’s what banana republics do.
But since the US Constitution is a dead-letter law, victims of the state have no way of foreseeing or controlling how vague law will be bent and charges changed in the course of seeking a desired prosecutorial outcome.
What prompts this post today, in particular (you can be sure that every day US prosecutors proceed on dodgy, ex post facto legal grounds)?
The California Franchise Tax Board, the state’s version of the IRS, “[has] determined that a tax break claimed over the past few years by 2,500 entrepreneurs and stockholders of California-based small businesses is no longer valid and sent out notices of payment.”
“How would you feel if you made a decision, which was made four years ago, (and) you absolutely knew was legally correct and four years later a governing body came in and said, ‘no, it’s not correct, now you owe us a bunch more money. And we’re going to charge you interest on money you didn’t even know you owed’,” Brian Overstreet told Fox News from his office north of San Francisco.