Immigration Bill Unconstitutional?
I stumbled upon this today while browsing Free Republic. It questions whether or not the illegal immigration bill is unconstitutional. The writer uses the ex post facto law to make his case.
The Ex Post Facto law refers to laws adopted after an act is committed making it illegal although it was legal when done, or increasing the penalty for a crime after it is committed. Such laws are specifically prohibited by the U.S. Constitution, Article I, Section 9. Therefore, if a state legislature or Congress enacts new rules of proof or longer sentences, those new rules or sentences do not apply to crimes committed before the new law was adopted.
The argument is, if we cannot convict someone for crimes committed before a law was passed, how can we make someone a non-criminal for crimes committed before a law is passed. The President, of course, has the option to grant pardons. Congress and the White House are saying this isn't "Amnesty", because they have to pay a $4000 fine, so it must be a pardon. So, it appears that for $4000, you can purchase a pardon from the President.
I look forward to the impending lawsuits.
