CHATNJACK
06-12-2009, 09:07 PM
Ex Post Facto Clauses a.k.a. “grandfather clause”
The ex post facto clauses are found within the U.S. Constitution, under Article 1, sections 9 and 10. Section 9 states:
No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.
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.
An ex post facto law (from the Latin for from something done afterward) or retroactive law, is a law that retroactively changes the legal consequences of acts committed or the legal status of facts and relationships that existed prior to the enactment of the law. Ex post facto violations occur when breed-specific legislation (BSL) is passed in a municipality, county, or state and residents who owned the banned breeds prior to them being banned are allowed to keep their dogs through what is erroneously called grandfathering are still forced to comply with strictures outlined within the BSL. Forcing prior owners of now banned breeds to comply with the new strictures in exchange for them keeping their dogs is illegal per the ex post facto clauses and is not grandfathering. True grandfathering would be prior owners of the banned breeds being unaffected by the new law until such time as they sought to acquire another of the banned breed which they would not legally be allowed to do. (I say legally because breed-specific legislation in and of itself is illegal and unconstitutional.)
For instance, say you live in a town that has just passed a breed ban against pitbulls, but which has allowed for prior owners to keep their pitbulls as long as they comply with guidelines found within the breed-specific legislation. The guidelines could be and often are mandatory spay/neuter of the now banned pitbulls or a requirement to acquire a liability insurance policy on the pitbulls for some set amount. Applying these newly legislated strictures to prior pitbull owners would then be a violation of ex post facto law.
It should also be noted that ex post facto law is independent of property, equal protection, and due process law under the 14th amendment, of which breed-specific legislation is also in violation.
DISCLAIMER:
The reader has the sole responsible for his/her use of this content, and agrees to indemnify and hold harmless the forum owner, its affiliates and CHATNJACK with respect to any claims and demands against them, including any attorney fees and expenses, based upon the use of the material herein.
The ex post facto clauses are found within the U.S. Constitution, under Article 1, sections 9 and 10. Section 9 states:
No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.
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.
An ex post facto law (from the Latin for from something done afterward) or retroactive law, is a law that retroactively changes the legal consequences of acts committed or the legal status of facts and relationships that existed prior to the enactment of the law. Ex post facto violations occur when breed-specific legislation (BSL) is passed in a municipality, county, or state and residents who owned the banned breeds prior to them being banned are allowed to keep their dogs through what is erroneously called grandfathering are still forced to comply with strictures outlined within the BSL. Forcing prior owners of now banned breeds to comply with the new strictures in exchange for them keeping their dogs is illegal per the ex post facto clauses and is not grandfathering. True grandfathering would be prior owners of the banned breeds being unaffected by the new law until such time as they sought to acquire another of the banned breed which they would not legally be allowed to do. (I say legally because breed-specific legislation in and of itself is illegal and unconstitutional.)
For instance, say you live in a town that has just passed a breed ban against pitbulls, but which has allowed for prior owners to keep their pitbulls as long as they comply with guidelines found within the breed-specific legislation. The guidelines could be and often are mandatory spay/neuter of the now banned pitbulls or a requirement to acquire a liability insurance policy on the pitbulls for some set amount. Applying these newly legislated strictures to prior pitbull owners would then be a violation of ex post facto law.
It should also be noted that ex post facto law is independent of property, equal protection, and due process law under the 14th amendment, of which breed-specific legislation is also in violation.
DISCLAIMER:
The reader has the sole responsible for his/her use of this content, and agrees to indemnify and hold harmless the forum owner, its affiliates and CHATNJACK with respect to any claims and demands against them, including any attorney fees and expenses, based upon the use of the material herein.