Hmm comments needed on this

D

Dead

New member
Ok I just saw this in the US Constitution

Article I
Section. 10.
Clause 1: No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.

Just wondering if this would apply to the NY State AW bill?? Seeing how the wording would make the legal possession of a legal reciever made after, Sept. 1994, into a Violent Felony in November 2000.
 
No.

If it made the possession of such a receiver in the past illegal, that would be an ex post facto law.

If it just says you can't have one after a certain date,
that's just a stupid law.
 
What about making legal possession of something into a violent felony??? That has to be some sorta of due process violation there.

There has to be someone to get this struck down, other than the Second as that would NOT be heard.. ugh.. :barf:
 
You're certainly right that it's unfair and violates traditional ideas of the common law. The laws today have gotten so complicated that no one can really be expected to keep up, and it's easy to find yourself a felon without doing anything new. In law school they told us that the U.S., the U.K., Australia, N.Z, and Canada were all "common law" jurisdictions, as opposed to "civil law" jurisdictions with huge civil codes spelling everything out. I don't think that's true any more. I have the entire German federal civil code in one volume. The United States Code takes a whole lot more.

That said, given our current system they can do this. Think back to when alcohol was banned, and before that to when cocaine was banned, and you'll see that there were undoubtedly people who had a little stash who were legal one day and felons the next.
 
RHC,

But there is NO amendment to protect Alchol, and Cocaine, there is one that does "protect" the second.
 
Dead,
There are many approaches to making the law unconstitutional. Just not the one you picked. When the state tells you you cannot possess something you already own after a certain date, they are depriving you of legally held property. They are probably doing this without just compensation therefore you have a violation of the BOR. In addition, it is a bold faced violation of the second, but most people think that the second is about giving the US Army the right to have guns.

Likewise, many of our drug laws are unconstitutional under the Bill of Attainder since they provide for asset forfeiture without due process of law.

I get a kick out of seeing how many people even know what a Bill of Attainder is, and I also get a kick (in the guts) when I realize how many laws are unconstitutional.
 
I would get a kick out of trying to find a law (written in the past 100 or year) that is NOT in some way constitutional questionalable. :)
 
make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts

Gee, does that mean things like Paper bills and credit cards are unConstitutional?
 
"...., or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts"

Who can explain this to me more clearly. Same as the first post US Consititution Article I Section 10 Clause 1.

Would this invalidate a law passed if said law was passed after LEGAL contracts were sign for transfer of goods from one to another (with penilties for not delivering said goods), and the deliveries of the goods would take place after a law passed making the goods illegal (hense the loss of fund to the supposed recievers of the goods)??

I am not a lawyer, nor can I make much sense of flaws, i mean laws...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top