Is retroactive immunity even constitutional? (FindLaw)

[wtmusic]

"The Senate is currently debating whether to immunize from civil liability the telephone companies that allegedly violated customers' privacy rights when they provided to the U.S. Government confidential information about customers' phone and Internet communications. However, in this column, I want to focus on a narrower issue: If enacted, would the immunizing legislation be constitutional?

In Other Contexts, the Federal Government Has Deemed Retroactive Immunity Unacceptable Unless Paired with a Compensation Fund

<>

In fact, throughout the recent history of federal responses to various liability crises, the pattern has been the same: The elimination of causes of action has always been linked to some kind of quid pro quo, whether it took the form of a guaranteed payment, such as for the 9/11 victims' families, or access to a special court, such as in the case of childhood vaccines. The Black Lung Program and the attempted at instituting an asbestos program are both typical of how the federal government inserts itself into very pedestrian tort litigation by providing immunity from suit with one hand, and compensation to victims with the other."

http://writ.news.findlaw.com/sebok/20080129.html

[SergeyDovlatov]

1. Article I section 9: “No bill of attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed

Retroactive immunity smells very much of ex post facto Law.

Statement on HR 6304, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) Amendments before the US House of Representatives, June 20, 2008


...
The main reason I oppose this latest version is that it still clearly violates the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution by allowing the federal government to engage in the bulk collection of American citizens’ communications without a search warrant. That US citizens can have their private communication intercepted by the government without a search warrant is anti-American, deeply disturbing, and completely unacceptable.

In addition to gutting the fourth amendment, this measure will deprive Americans who have had their rights violated by telecommunication companies involved in the Administration’s illegal wiretapping program the right to seek redress in the courts for the wrongs committed against them. Worse, this measure provides for retroactive immunity, whereby individuals or organizations that broke the law as it existed are granted immunity for prior illegal actions once the law has been changed. Ex post facto laws have long been considered anathema in free societies under rule of law. Our Founding Fathers recognized this, including in Article I section 9 of the Constitution that “No bill of attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.” How is this FISA bill not a variation of ex post facto? That alone should give pause to supporters of this measure.

Mr. Speaker, we should understand that decimating the protections that our Constitution provides us against the government is far more dangerous to the future of this country than whatever external threats may exist. We can protect this country without violating the Constitution and I urge my colleagues to reconsider their support for this measure.

[hvn_nbr_2]

9. "It's just a fucking piece of paper"

You seem to be under the illusion that the constitution means something.

[SergeyDovlatov]

13. I am just an observer. 90+% of all legislation is unconstitutional

And nothing we can do about it.

The last line of defense in support of freedom and the Constitution consists of the people themselves.
Until people wake up and treat it as serious matter, nothing will happen.
And people won't.

People generally invoke constitution to fight legislation they don't like and conveniently forget about the constitution when the legislation is the one they are in favor.

P.S.

90%+ statistics is made on the spot

[Phred42]

16. Excellent point

Gotta wonder why noone is mentioning it

Conyers
Wexler
Waxman
etc
etc

[dysfunctional press]

2. i've been saying that from the getgo...it's a law of ex-post facto.

and unconstitutional on it's face.

[spanone]

3. constitutionality has meant NOTHING to the bu$h* cabal

[mod mom]

10. there lies the entire problem!

[SergeyDovlatov]

14. It doesn't mean much to either political party.

Constitution is a tool to use to attack policies you disagree with and dismiss when defending policies you care about.

[Hydra]

4. Of course it isn't Constitutional

But as our Furless Leader was quoted as saying, "The Constitution is just a goddamn piece of paper!"

I admit, though, that I'm worried. Immunity to law and torture are now considered debatable concepts.

:puke:

[arcadian]

5. The U.S. Constitution? I saw it in the National Archives.

They were stocking it in the toilet paper dispensers in the men's bathroom.

[wtmusic]

8. Me too -- the Bill of Rights was hanging off the edge of the toilet

Getting that cleaned up right now.

[fascisthunter]

6. I Would Think anything Unconstitutional Should Never Stand in a Court of Law

but hey.... look at Bush and his right wing wackos he placed in government.

[SergeyDovlatov]

7. What about federal minimum wage or partial birth abortion ban? Are those constitutional?

Both were defended on the ground of interstate commerce clause.

Article I, Section 8, Clause 1,3:

“ The Congress shall have power . . . To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes; ”

I believe that violating the constitution is bipartisan affair.
Both parties pick and choose when to be righteous about the constitution and when to be evasive.

... And if something is blatantly unconstitutional you can always fallback on reliable interstate commercle clause to make anything you want to be constitutional.

[fascisthunter]

11. A Women's Right to Choose.. a Women's Ownership of Her Body

Hmmmmmm..... Why did you bring this up? I am directly talking about this bill being unconstitutional. Do you agree or disagree?

[SergeyDovlatov]

12. Just as an example of two unconstitutional (IMHO) legislations from the left and from the right n/t

[MiniMe]

15. The constitution is what the Supreme Court says it is

I predict another 5-4 decision, the question is which way does Kennedy vote.