What is an ex post facto law?
After the fact........((Ex post facto law, law that retroactively changes the legal consequences of acts committed prior to the enactment of the law)) I guess you answered your own question
What is an ex post facto law?
The first 2 answers are correct. And it is important to note that this is a specific protection in the constitution along with prohibition on bills of attainder. So the rule of law cannot be used to punish someone who committed a past act that was not illegal by making it illegal retroactively (but has been violated and end run many times - particularly on tax law) And the rule of law cannot be used to punish a specific individual by making their behavior illegal but not illegal if someone else's does it (a bill of attainder). A few years ago there was a case where congress passed and the president signed into law an Ex Post Facto bill of attainder into law. Teri Schaivo had been in a persistent vegetative state for many years with no hope of recovery. Her husband decided to withdraw life support as was his right under the law. The case was heard, adjudicated by the courts and decision made. Then congress stepped in to make a retroactive law to invalidate the court decision (an ex post facto law) and wrote it so narrowly as to only apply to the Schaivo case - a bill of attainder intended to strip one person of their court-adjudicated rights. It was a sad day for the constitution.
What is an Ex Post Facto Law?
An ex post facto law (from the Latin for "after the fact") 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. In reference to criminal law, it may criminalize actions that were legal when committed; or it may aggravate a crime by bringing it into a more severe category than it was in at the time it was committed; or it may change or increase the punishment prescribed for a crime, such as by adding new penalties or extending terms; or it may alter the rules of evidence in order to make conviction for a crime more likely than it would have been at the time of the action for which a defendant is prosecuted. Conversely, a form of ex post facto law commonly known as an amnesty law may decriminalize certain acts or alleviate possible punishments (for example by replacing the death sentence with life-long imprisonment) retroactively. A law may have an ex post facto effect without being technically ex post facto. For example, when a law repeals a previous law, the repealed legislation no longer applies to the situations it once did, even if such situations arose before the law was repealed. The principle of prohibiting the continued application of these kinds of laws is also known as Nullum crimen, nulla poena sine praevia lege poenali, particularly in European continental systems. Generally speaking, ex post facto penal laws are seen as a violation of the rule of law as it applies in a free and democratic society. Most common law jurisdictions do not permit retroactive criminal legislation, though some have suggested that judge-made law is retroactive as a new precedent applies to events that occurred prior to the judicial decision. In some nations that follow the Westminster system of government, such as the United Kingdom, ex post facto laws are technically possible as the doctrine of parliamentary supremacy allows parliament to pass any law it wishes. However, in a nation with an entrenched bill of rights or a written constitution, ex post facto legislation may be prohibited
What is ex-post-facto law?
An ex post facto law is a law that retrospectively changes the legal consequences of acts committed prior to the enactment of the law. It can be either making an act as an offence with retrospective effect; or increasing the prescribed punishment for an offence committed in past. For example, a law passed in 2010 making an act a criminal offence and seeking to punish that person for his action in 2005.The Supreme Court in Biswanath Bhattacharya v. Union of India, (2014) 4 SCC 392 reiterated that Article 20 contains one of the most basic guarantees to the subjects of the Republic of India. The Article stipulates two things:(i) That no person shall be convicted of any offence except for violation of the law in force at the time of the commission of the act charged as an offence; and(ii) That no person shall be subjected to a penalty greater than that which might have been inflicted under the law in force at the time of the commission of the offence. It is a well-settled principle of constitutional law that sovereign legislative bodies can make laws with retrospective operation; and can make laws whose operation is dependent upon facts or events anterior to the making of the law. However, criminal law is excepted from such general rule, under another equally well-settled principle of constitutional law i.e. no ex post facto legislation is permissible with respect to criminal law. Article 20 contains such exception to the general authority of the sovereign legislature functioning under the Constitution to make retrospective or retroactive laws.
What Is an post expo facto law?
Do you mean an ex post facto law? EX POST FACTO LAW -- a law that applies retroactively, especially in a way that negatively affects a person's rights, as in criminalizing an action that was legal when it was committed. There is a clause in the U.S. Constitution that prohibits the enactment of ex post facto laws, It prevents people from being tried and punished for doing something that was legal but is now a crime. For example, let's say abortion was outlawed today -- they can't go back and try someone for having an abortion yesterday or any day before that.
Ex post facto laws?
Most labor laws state that the employee is an "AT WILL" employee and can be hired and fired without reason. If they haven't violated any sort of "whistleblower" laws, or any other type of federally or state mandated laws (IE: Discrimination), then they have every right to make up the rules as they go... If you have done something to jeopardize them either legally or financially, then your job is on the line. Side Note: A guy where I was working was being threatened by his supervisor constantly. He would be yelled at, "I'm watching you John, I'm gonna get you fired"... Well, long story short, my friend took in a tape recorder and recorded his supervisor threatening him, then he took this tape to management. The supervisor was fired for harassment. Moral of the story: DOCUMENT EVERYTHING. When they see that you aren't stupid and have some kind of written or oral documentation (in your case, of others that have done the same thing), they will back off.
What are ex post facto laws?
Ex post facto "after the fact" also known as "retroactive law". It makes something LEGAL when committed (say driving drunk with no fine, just a ticket) ILLEGAL once a law is put into effect but they can't charge the person for it. BUT It can also refer to a law that increases the penalty of a crime after it is committed. It can criminalize an action that was legal when crime was committed or change the punishment. The Constitution Article I Section 10 , forbids the passing of ex post facto criminal laws. Some examples of reasonable ex post facto laws. Adam's Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act named after Adam Walsh a young boy who was abducted in Florida and found dead (son of tv America's Most Wanted host John Walsh) (the law the requires each state have a sex offender registry, including info on the internet, all 3 Tier offenders (most severe) to register every 3 months and let authorities know their whereabouts 2 Tier offenders every six months, Tier 1 offenders register every year or is a FELONY. Sex offenders who molested children but did not get punished for it could now be put in prison. It has to do with the justification of the safety of the children.
Do you consider liking and reposting your ex’s posts, when you never talk, as some kind of communication?
No, don’t do this. Either communicate with them directly or not at all.In fact, I just recommend moving on. There will always be someone else in the future for you.
What is the Ex Post Facto law mean?
It means that the law has retrospective consequences. Let's say that in 2004 you do something that is perfectly legal. In 2006, the legislature of your state decides that the same conduct now should be illegal. If the law is ex post facto, you can in 2006 (or later) be charged for that crime, even though it was legal at the time you did it. In the US the examples would be laws against child sexual offenses (Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act) and a ban on gun ownership for people convicted of domestic violence (Domestic Violence Offender Gun Ban). It's pretty obvious why these two laws have retrospective effect, I guess. There are also administrative laws that are ex post facto, but they're not really relevant to most people. By and large, ex post facto laws are unconstitutional in the US, other than the three exceptions mentioned above.
What are some examples of ex post facto law?
One example springs to mind under the law of England and Wales:R v R [1991] UKHL 12:Facts:Estranged husband forces his wife to have sexual intercourse with him, he is charged with Rape under Section 1 of the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1976 (now S 1, Sexual Offences Act 2003).Law:Previous common law (law established in cases) had stated that there was an exception to rape law in that a husband cannot rape his wife, the marital rape exception.Authority:R v C [1991] 1 All ER 755R v J [1991] 1 All ER 759Whilst these cases did convict for rape in their particular circumstances, they did affirm the marital rape exception in a tacit sense by not overruling it (stating it as no longer law). Was part of Hale's History of the Pleas of the Crown (1736), which stated that marriage included permanent consent.Outcome:Successful conviction of the defendant, the marital rape exception dismissed as no longer law.I would say this is a questionable example since the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1976 did not mention the continued existence of the exception but in no way eliminated it either. Many would argue that the definition of “unlawful sexual intercourse” would have made it illegal for any un-consensual sex to be legal although others argued that sex within marriage was inherently lawful. You could go into Hart Positivism’s rule of recognition for the validity of law to claim it wasn’t law but that’s more excessively academic than this answer needs to be.I think this is the closest I’ve ever come to seeing a post-facto law, that I can remember well. Simplistic answer, I hope it helps.