benton0311
Active Member
- Feb 26, 2011
- 358
I just wanted to create a separate post to highlight the differences between the no ex post facto provisions of the Maryland Constitution and the United States Constitution The no ex post facto provision of the United States Constitution has been discussed a little bit here but the greater degree of protection afforded by the Maryland Constitution seems to frequently be overlooked.
The Maryland Constitution:
Article 17.
That retrospective Laws, punishing acts committed before the existence of such
Laws, and by them only declared criminal, are oppressive, unjust and incompatible
with liberty; wherefore, no ex post facto Law ought to be made; nor any retrospective
oath or restriction be imposed, or required.
The U.S. Constitution, Article 1, Section 9:
No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.
Regarding the United States Constitution, note that the ex post facto provision of Article 1 Section 9 is a little more vague and has frequently been argued as to whether not it only applies to new acts committed after a law is passed or to newly-banned property owned in violation of laws moving forward. This is where you then go down the rabbit hole of the Takings Clause and Due Process.
Article 17 was one of the arguments I made to my legislators last year as well as during several parts of FSA2013. Whether or not it was heard, I also sent Article 17 to the bills' sponsors explaining that provisions of their bills were in clear violation of the Maryland Constitution with Article 17 copied and pasted in the text.
The Maryland Constitution:
Article 17.
That retrospective Laws, punishing acts committed before the existence of such
Laws, and by them only declared criminal, are oppressive, unjust and incompatible
with liberty; wherefore, no ex post facto Law ought to be made; nor any retrospective
oath or restriction be imposed, or required.
The U.S. Constitution, Article 1, Section 9:
No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.
Regarding the United States Constitution, note that the ex post facto provision of Article 1 Section 9 is a little more vague and has frequently been argued as to whether not it only applies to new acts committed after a law is passed or to newly-banned property owned in violation of laws moving forward. This is where you then go down the rabbit hole of the Takings Clause and Due Process.
Article 17 was one of the arguments I made to my legislators last year as well as during several parts of FSA2013. Whether or not it was heard, I also sent Article 17 to the bills' sponsors explaining that provisions of their bills were in clear violation of the Maryland Constitution with Article 17 copied and pasted in the text.