Ex post facto law Essays

1. Define and describe ex post facto laws. An “ex post facto law is one that alters the laws regarding a particular act in such a way as to be detrimental to the substantial rights of an accused person” (Chamelin & Thomas, 2012, p. 15). These laws can happen in three ways: the timing and posting of new or changed laws, increasing punishments after a criminal act, and the decreasing of a state’s burden of proof. The first occurrence of an ex post facto is when a person commits an act before it

unconstitutionally applied as an Ex Post Facto law Clauses. 2. No, the Act does not violate the Single Subject. 3. No, the Act does not violate the Separation of Powers Clause. 4. No, the Act does not violate the Substantive Due Process. 5. No, the Act does not violate the Equal Protection Clause. 6. No, the Act does not violate the Procedural Due Process. Rationales Rationale 1- Rollinson argues that the law violates the Ex Post Facto Clauses because he was sentenced after the law was passed increasing his

Whether it be social discrimination or women’s rights, people in the history of the United States have been fighting for equal rights. The poem “Sympathy” by Paul Laurence Dunbar and the speech titled “After Being Convicted of Voting in the 1872 Presidential Election” by Susan B. Anthony both have similarities and differences. They are similar with their central idea and author’s purpose; they are different in how their supporting details are executed. The two pieces share the central idea of “an

compelling than Martin Luther King Jr. “I Have a Dream” speech. This is because she used a plethora of figurative language to describe her point and she uses the law to enforce herself. She explains that women are like men other than gender and that they should have the same rights. Also, she explains that women are humans and that every law against women and blacks were void. “Are women persons?”(Anthony, 2) was the question she asked and she had it answered. Look at us today; women can vote, get a

In today’s world, it seems to be that women have the same rights as men, but it wasn't always this way. The speech “Women’s Rights to Suffrage” by Susan B Anthony is the most compelling of all. Susan B Anthony persuades the audience that all women should have the same rights as men. It’s shown through the speech that the federal constitution says “we the people”, the government has no right to take away rights from just one gender, and that women are considered people as well. The fact that the constitution

trespassers should be prosecuted. We generally get the idea of a stranger sneaking around in the private premises or overgrown garden of an estranged, mysterious neighbour. Trespass is one of the ancient forms of action that arouse under the common law of England as early in the thirteenth century. Trespass was originally a generic word for a wrong. Gradually, other terms and categories developed to describe particular types of wrongs but in legal usage “trespass” continued to be a catchall term for

and possession of illegal and drug paraphernalia. Any search needs to be with a warrant. The fourth Amendment “the right of the people to be secure in their person against unreasonable searches and seizures…. but upon probable issue.” The Ex Post Facto “is kind law that is used after an act is committed to make it illegal even it was legal when done.” In the case of Weeks V US 232 U.S. 383 the supreme court addressed this issue. The Fourth Amendment “…protect citizens against warrantless searches

decided to civilly commit Hendricks because of his mental abnormality, but they did not criminal commit them. Hendricks appeal the decision claiming the state was unconstitutional using ex post facto and double jeopardy laws. The State Supreme of Kansas said nothing about Hendricks claim of double jeopardy and ex post facto, but they found that the act was invalid because metal abnormality did

punishment or a threat of punishment for a crime that has been committed. Without punishment, there would be no criminal laws. Therefore, I believe that illegal drug use, prostitution, and gambling fit all seven of the elements of a crime as described above (Bohm & Haley, 2011). These crimes are also characterized as mala prohibita due to the offenses are made illegal by laws and not by mala in se, they are crimes that are everywhere and have been crimes such as

about a bill of attainder and an ex post facto law. A bill of attainder is when the legislature convicts a criminal guilty, and they don’t have an advantage with a trial. Sometimes, it is used in the British Parliament, however, the Founding Fathers have banned them because they violated our liberty. An ex post facto law is when someone has already committed a certain act, and this law makes that action illegal. Both the bill of attainder and the ex post facto law cannot be passed. Clause 4 This

Such as, Congress cannot pass ex-post facto laws. Ex post facto laws are laws that make an act illegal that was legal when committed, increases the penalties for an infraction after it has been committed, or changes the rules of evidence to make conviction easier (Dictionary, 2005). They also cannot pass

Of the four, ‘war crimes’ was the most legitimate. The Allied judges and prosecutors built on the Geneva Conventions and Hague Rules as evidence against Nazi actions during World War Two. According to Cornell Law, “the Geneva Conventions are a series of treaties on the treatment of civilians, prisoners of war (POWs) and soldiers who are otherwise rendered hors de combat, or incapable of fighting” (Geneva Conventions). The Hague Rules were rules established in

international law. The judgement in the trials had a strong legal influence on subsequent developments and it raises questions that still concern us in studying international criminal law. Still being the first of its kind dealing with mass crimes against humanity, the trial lacked precedent, legality and had its own criticisms too which will be further discussed in the essay. Advantages of the trial: 7 Nuremberg Principles: The definition of what

“On Woman’s Right to Vote” was made by Susan B. Anthony to prove that women should have the right to vote. Throughout the writing she uses techniques to prove her points. Which are ethos, pathos, logos and rhetorical questions. She uses these techniques of writing to really prove a point in her writing. So the audience will read it and understand why women should have the right to vote. To start off, in the first paragraph, Susan B Anthony introduces her topic. She speaks on the woman right to vote

accordingly. In short, it is an imposition of the victors’ law on the vanquished. The Allied nations defined a war crime, on this basis drew up the list of Nazi criminals they deemed to have committed this crime and subsequently charged them. The reasoning behind the labelling of the trials as ‘victors’ justice’ owes much to the disputation regarding the legality of the charges against the defendants and the practice of retroactive law, the subsequent legitimacy of the International

Chapter:2 The United States Constitution pages 87-107 Preamble: 1. Form a More Perfect Union, Establish Justice,Insure Domestic Tranquility, Provide for the Common Defense, Promote the General Welfare, Secure the Blessings of Liberty. 2. "We the people of the united states" it means that the only reason that their is a government is because of the people, and should be made to serve the people. Article:1 Legislative Branch 1. The framers were intent on stressing the central role of the legislative

In Federalist #48, framer James Madison explained congress is, “everywhere extending the sphere of its activity and drawing all power into its impetuous vortex.” In the Constitution, the powers and limits on congress are addressed first in great detail. In Article one, section eight, the first clause states that congress has the power to tax, in clause three they have the power to regulate commerce, and in clause 11 they have the power to declare war. In Article I, section nine, of the constitution

cannot suspend the right to trial by jury in criminal cases, that the government cannot pass any ex post facto laws or bills of attainders, among many others. While the constitution was being drafted there were many disagreements between the federalists and the anti-federalists about whether this new constitution sufficiently protected individual rights

from had many ideas from Lockean philosophy. The defense team stated, “This maximum is precisely not a rule of expediency but it derives from the recognition of the fact that any defendant must needs consider himself unjustly treated under an ex post facto law.” Consequently, per the defense team, the Nazis, who harmed

In 1873, Susan B. Anthony gave an infamous speech on women’s right to vote. She talks and gives examples of her being a citizen, and every citizen should have the right to vote. She’s trying to show people that her voting wasn’t a crime, in order to convince them that women should be able to vote along with men. She uses a very firm and disappointed tone throughout her speech, more to get her point across to the people she is talking to. Anthony gave this speech after being tried and fined for