Is It UnConstitutional To Pass Laws Then Apply Them Retroactively?

[JimBowie1958]

Trumps tax records are from a periood before this ridiculous New York law that was written to specifically target him. I have a lot of problems with that kind of law, but it is applying to all his past records too.

Isnt that just retroactive Stalinism?

Trump will ask Supreme Court to take New York tax returns case after losing appeal

 

[Syriusly]

Trumps tax records are from a periood before this ridiculous New York law that was written to specifically target him. I have a lot of problems with that kind of law, but it is applying to all his past records too.

Isnt that just retroactive Stalinism?

Trump will ask Supreme Court to take New York tax returns case after losing appeal

'retroactive stalinism'?

I don't remember Stalin ever having a problem refusing to show his voters his tax returns.

What was that bill?
a bill that would allow three congressional tax committees to request state income tax returns and reports from the New York State Commissioner of the Department of Taxation and Finance

The funny thing is you seem to think that Stalin had to pass bills to get information like this.
Anyway- I guess we can put you down as being against state's rights.

 

[bodecea]

Trumps tax records are from a periood before this ridiculous New York law that was written to specifically target him. I have a lot of problems with that kind of law, but it is applying to all his past records too.

Isnt that just retroactive Stalinism?

Trump will ask Supreme Court to take New York tax returns case after losing appeal

Ex Post Facto. Guide to the Constitution

 

[Pogo]

I see the OP has taken to heart my spelling of unConstitutional. He's in awe of me.

No, it's not unConstitutional to pass a law and apply it retroactively, it's just invalid. But that's not what's happening here, is it OP. Read closely now, here comes another lesson.

It's not that the law didn't exist when the tax returns were filed ---- it's that the tax returns themselves did. The law is stating that those records -- from THEN -- can be examined NOW. It's not saying that they can be examined in the past.

Now then, if those tax returns from whatever year did not violate the laws that existed THEN ----- why would one be screaming and kicking to keep them under wraps NOW? Only one reason --- they contained something that was fraudulent THEN. And we could find out about it NOW.

You remember "fraudulent" right? As in 25 million bucks paid to settle a case for a "Mexican" judge?

Are you actually suggesting that one could file fraudulent returns on the basis that the law of the time would not allow the public to see them, therefore it's OK?

 

[xyz]

Isnt that just retroactive Stalinism?

Stalin was an absolute ruler. It's pretty refreshing that a lot of people think Donald John Trump has kicked the bucket, as Stalin was only impeached post-mortem.

 

[Syriusly]

I see the OP has taken to heart my spelling of unConstitutional. He's in awe of me.

No, it's not unConstitutional to pass a law and apply it retroactively, it's just invalid. But that's not what's happening here, is it OP. Read closely now, here comes another lesson.

It's not that the law didn't exist when the tax returns were filed ---- it's that the tax returns themselves did. The law is stating that those records -- from THEN -- can be examined NOW. It's not saying that they can be examined in the past.

Now then, if those tax returns from whatever year did not violate the laws that existed THEN ----- why would one be screaming and kicking to keep them under wraps NOW? Only one reason --- they contained something that was fraudulent THEN. And we could find out about it NOW.

You remember "fraudulent" right? As in 25 million bucks paid to settle a case for a "Mexican" judge?

Are you actually suggesting that one could file fraudulent returns on the basis that the law of the time would not allow the public to see them, therefore it's OK?

Donald Trump is fighting on a lot of fronts to prevent people from knowing what he has done.

Remember- Trump didn't just spontaneously tell voters about his secret attempt to get Ukraine to publicly announce an investigation into his political rival- he only did so after outed by a whistleblower.
Remember- Trump didn't want voters to know about his adultery with a porn star- so he paid her over 100K to keep quiet, and swore to his beloved followers that claims that he had paid anyone off was Fake News
Remember- Trump didn't want voters to know about his adultery with a Playboy bunny- so he asked the National Enquirer CEO to buy- and bury the store- because you know.....FAKE NEWS.....

Now Trump is fighting to keep his tax returns from Congress, and fighting to keep his aides from testifying to Congress, and fighting to keep the American public from seeing the documents behind the Ukraine fiasco.

How many things is Trump scared of that voters will see?

 

[JimBowie1958]

Isnt that just retroactive Stalinism?

Stalin was an absolute ruler. It's pretty refreshing that a lot of people think Donald John Trump has kicked the bucket, as Stalin was only impeached post-mortem.

The OP is not suggesting Trump is like Stalin, genius, but that Piglosi' proceedings are like a Stalin show trial.

But dont worry that you cant grasp it, America will explain it to you and your butt buddies a year from now.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Trumps tax records are from a periood before this ridiculous New York law that was written to specifically target him. I have a lot of problems with that kind of law, but it is applying to all his past records too.

Isnt that just retroactive Stalinism?

Trump will ask Supreme Court to take New York tax returns case after losing appeal

'retroactive stalinism'?

I don't remember Stalin ever having a problem refusing to show his voters his tax returns.

What was that bill?
a bill that would allow three congressional tax committees to request state income tax returns and reports from the New York State Commissioner of the Department of Taxation and Finance

The funny thing is you seem to think that Stalin had to pass bills to get information like this.
Anyway- I guess we can put you down as being against state's rights.

Wow, how could anyone possible misconstrue my post any more than that?

Well, sometimes it takes a Woketard.

Stalin was infamous for making rectroactive laws and having people executed for violating them or for redefining the laws by fiat so he could purge his rivals.

How can you be that stupid and still know how to connect to the internet. I guess it is all literally idiot proof today, as you demonstrate.

 

[JimBowie1958]

No, it's not unConstitutional to pass a law and apply it retroactively, it's just invalid.

roflmao

 

[JimBowie1958]

Trumps tax records are from a periood before this ridiculous New York law that was written to specifically target him. I have a lot of problems with that kind of law, but it is applying to all his past records too.

Isnt that just retroactive Stalinism?

Trump will ask Supreme Court to take New York tax returns case after losing appeal

Ex Post Facto. Guide to the Constitution

From your link:

Nevertheless, opposition to ex post facto laws was a bedrock principle among the Framers. In The Federalist No. 78, Alexander Hamilton noted that "the subjecting of men to punishment for things which, when they were done, were breaches of no law" is among "the favorite and most formidable instruments of tyranny." Thomas Jefferson noted in an 1813 letter to Isaac McPherson "the sentiment that ex post facto laws are against natural right."​

So tyranny is Constitutional, according to lawyers and the legal system opf New Yorkthanks.

 

[Augustine_]

Trumps tax records are from a periood before this ridiculous New York law that was written to specifically target him. I have a lot of problems with that kind of law, but it is applying to all his past records too.

Isnt that just retroactive Stalinism?

Trump will ask Supreme Court to take New York tax returns case after losing appeal

By your logic, DNA testing can't be used as evidence for crimes that were committed before DNA testing. And other such like that.

 

[JimBowie1958]

By your logic, DNA testing can't be used as evidence for crimes that were committed before DNA testing. And other such like that.

No, derrrfuss, that is not what I am saying at all.

In anyone's tax returns much of the information is private information, especially for businessmen in places like New York. Much of that information would be in protected documents or held in attached addenda that would not be released to the public.

To apply this law retroactively to one person out of millions in that state is simply politics disguised as 'law' and a pretty thin disguise at that.

Trump has a right to his privacy and New York Dems are willing to throw everyone's right to privacy under the bus in their hysterical obsessive fit to find any dirt on Trump that they can.

That is horse shit and 80% of America that has not ejected their minds to become Woketards understands this is nothing more than a partisan withchunt,

 

[fncceo]

I don't remember Stalin ever having a problem refusing to show his voters his tax returns.

Did Stalin pay taxes?

 

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

To apply this law retroactively to one person out of millions in that state is simply politics disguised as 'law' and a pretty thin disguise at that.

Trump has a right to his privacy and New York Dems are willing to throw everyone's right to privacy under the bus in their hysterical obsessive fit to find any dirt on Trump that they can.

So it's a tradition not a obligation that previous presidential candidates and elected officials release their tax returns?

I haven't been following what's going on with the attempt to compel Trump to release his tax returns but my understanding is that financial records can be subpoenaed during the course of an investigation or legal action. Is that what's happening here?

 

[Bob Blaylock]

No, it's not unConstitutional to pass a law and apply it retroactively, it's just invalid.

The Constitution explicitly forbids ex-post-facto law, both at the state and federal levels. So yes, it absolutely is unconstitutional to pass a law, and apply it retroactively. Article I, Section 9 states, “No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.” And just in case you're thinking that only this restriction applies only to the federal government, Article I, Section 10 states, “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.”

 

[Nostra]

I see the OP has taken to heart my spelling of unConstitutional. He's in awe of me.

No, it's not unConstitutional to pass a law and apply it retroactively, it's just invalid. But that's not what's happening here, is it OP. Read closely now, here comes another lesson.

It's not that the law didn't exist when the tax returns were filed ---- it's that the tax returns themselves did. The law is stating that those records -- from THEN -- can be examined NOW. It's not saying that they can be examined in the past.

Now then, if those tax returns from whatever year did not violate the laws that existed THEN ----- why would one be screaming and kicking to keep them under wraps NOW? Only one reason --- they contained something that was fraudulent THEN. And we could find out about it NOW.

You remember "fraudulent" right? As in 25 million bucks paid to settle a case for a "Mexican" judge?

Are you actually suggesting that one could file fraudulent returns on the basis that the law of the time would not allow the public to see them, therefore it's OK?

What a pant load.

This is a political fishing expedition. If Trump was violating tax laws the IRS and NY state agencies overseeing taxes would have taken action. You magically assume there has to be fraud simply because Trump doesn’t want his taxes made public.

Post your returns for the last decade, or you are guilty of tax fraud. GO!

 

[Crixus]

Trumps tax records are from a periood before this ridiculous New York law that was written to specifically target him. I have a lot of problems with that kind of law, but it is applying to all his past records too.

Isnt that just retroactive Stalinism?

Trump will ask Supreme Court to take New York tax returns case after losing appeal

Well, flip it on other polititions from New York. Like Nadler and Schumer.

 

[Olde Europe]

Trumps tax records are from a periood before this ridiculous New York law that was written to specifically target him. I have a lot of problems with that kind of law, but it is applying to all his past records too.

Isnt that just retroactive Stalinism?

Trump will ask Supreme Court to take New York tax returns case after losing appeal

Oh, for pity's sake!

An ex-post-facto law would hold him liable for violating a law enacted today for not complying with it during years past. As Pogo already explained to you, but, as usual, you wouldn't listen. Whereas the law requires he hand over the goods to the prosecution.

Oh, the whining throughout Rightardia! A plutocrat - a virtuous, holy plutocrat! - is being taken to account. How, oh how could this happen?

 

[JimBowie1958]

To apply this law retroactively to one person out of millions in that state is simply politics disguised as 'law' and a pretty thin disguise at that.

Trump has a right to his privacy and New York Dems are willing to throw everyone's right to privacy under the bus in their hysterical obsessive fit to find any dirt on Trump that they can.

So it's a tradition not a obligation that previous presidential candidates and elected officials release their tax returns?

I haven't been following what's going on with the attempt to compel Trump to release his tax returns but my understanding is that financial records can be subpoenaed during the course of an investigation or legal action. Is that what's happening here?

Not really because there is no crime that is being investigated, which is yet another objection to this law. At the time Trump's lawyer paid Daniels and another whore, there was no law against it, and the money came from Cohen's office slush fund, who was on retainer, in essence and a pot of money Cohen had for expenses none of which was illegal til later. Who else is being prosecuted fro this ridiculous crime of buying silence of whining little bitches?

Normally your right to privacy requires a warrant that itself requires a crime to investigate and evidence that suggests that violating the persons privacy will yeild more evidence.

Where is Trumps crime other than defeating She-Who-Has-Dibs-On-the-Presidency?

 

[Pogo]

I see the OP has taken to heart my spelling of unConstitutional. He's in awe of me.

No, it's not unConstitutional to pass a law and apply it retroactively, it's just invalid. But that's not what's happening here, is it OP. Read closely now, here comes another lesson.

It's not that the law didn't exist when the tax returns were filed ---- it's that the tax returns themselves did. The law is stating that those records -- from THEN -- can be examined NOW. It's not saying that they can be examined in the past.

Now then, if those tax returns from whatever year did not violate the laws that existed THEN ----- why would one be screaming and kicking to keep them under wraps NOW? Only one reason --- they contained something that was fraudulent THEN. And we could find out about it NOW.

You remember "fraudulent" right? As in 25 million bucks paid to settle a case for a "Mexican" judge?

Are you actually suggesting that one could file fraudulent returns on the basis that the law of the time would not allow the public to see them, therefore it's OK?

What a pant load.

This is a political fishing expedition. If Trump was violating tax laws the IRS and NY state agencies overseeing taxes would have taken action. You magically assume there has to be fraud simply because Trump doesn’t want his taxes made public.

Some kind of fraud, yes. Could be cheating that government out of its due (as his father did for decades, where do you think their money came from, DUH); it could be the revelation that his net worth, and/or his (alleged) philanthropy, is nowhere near what he claims it is when he makes shit up, could be that payoffs to Stormy Danielses and David Peckers and various businesses and various gangsters, Russian and elsewhere, would show up ---- most likely a combination of all of those.

Why is he so desperately hiding them, if not for fear the above will surface?

Again, you don't fuck up your tax returns just because you think you can get away with it. Rump has been shirking responsibility for literally everything all his damn life. Can you do that? Can I do that?

Ain't no "magic" to it, Hunior. It's simple logic. Anyone can work this out if they're not committed to partisan hackery. If you are so committed however, you figure that you can file a fraudulent return and nobody can ever examine it.

Post your returns for the last decade, or you are guilty of tax fraud. GO!

Number one numbnutz, I'm not running for an office, and number two numbnutz, it ain't my job to prove YOUR ass-sertion, is it. You claim I'm guilty of fraud, **YOU** have to prove it. I don't need to prove a negative just because some wanker on a message board makes shit up, Dumbass.