Legal question- If I break the law today and am convicted today

and tomorrow the law changes, aren't I still convicted under the old rules, ie, the law changes don't retroactively apply to everyone that was sentenced under the old law, right?

Some laws are retroactive, but other laws only apply from the time they go into effect and forward, not backward. It really depends on which law and what you're talking about.

x(

"...with liberty and justice for all" ??
Well, no, actually not for some time!

today the reason they are changing the law is to prevent people from thinking Bush (or future presidents) broke the law.

I always thought that if you broke the law, that if they CHANGE the law later, you're still guilty because at the time you broke it, it was illegal.

The best laid plans not only take into account future circumstances but also the enemy. The enemy is the American people. If they give you this law, they calculate it will be enough to anesthetize the American populace, and it will go back to sleep. It is like Nixon going "half way" for you, but will refuse to go all the way, and he will wait you out until you tire and conclude, "Half is better than nothing, I guess. I'm going home; I'm tired of protesting." That's social engineering at work.

break into a store on Tuesday. The law on Tuesday said that breaking and entering is a crime punishable by up to 20 years in prison and an X dollar fine. I'm caught but I haven't gone to trial yet. 6 months later, Congress enacts a law to say that as long as they can look over everyone's breaking and entering case FIRST instead of a court, it's not against the law to break and enter, and that should be okay because they provide oversight-that IF they determine someone really broke the law, they'll then refer it to a court. (Because I, being the progeny of a very important Big Wig, don't want my reputation ruined by anyone thinking I might be a felon).

Psychology aside, am I tried under the old law that I broke or the new one that would let me off the hook?

if we're talking about who we think we're talking about, then the chances are very high that if such a bill was put before Congress and debated, somebody somewhere will insert an amendment to the bill that will retroactively extend the bill backwards in time to, say, the hour before you broke into the store on Tuesday.

Actually, if you really wanted to do it the way it is often done on Capitol Hill, don't amend that bill at all. Let it pass into law as is. Instead, take that amendment and tack it onto another bill that has absolutely nothing to do with the amendment. For example, tack it onto a defense appropriations bill for the war in Iraq and Afghanistan. This way, anybody who votes against the bill specifically because of that amendment can be called "weak on defense" and "unpatriotic" and "exposing the country to danger." This is the classic Hermann Goering tactic of denouncing the pacifists for lack of patriotism, and like he says, it works.

innocently and a law is passed later that makes what that person did a crime? This is the opposite.

While your conviction may stand (though perhaps you could appeal under the 14th Amendment) any ongoing punishment such as imprisonment would cease. The matter comes up when states toy with legalizing marijuana and opponents argue that to do so would free a lot of prisoners and that that would somehow be a dangerous thing to do. :shrug: Note I am not a lawyer and I'm just guessing in this one.

edit: for clarity

that what Bush did, unwarrented spying on Americans, is UNCONSTITUTIONAL. Laws do not trump the Constitution only going through the process of amending the Constitution can do that.

If they change the law to make something illegal, it does not retroactively apply to things that weren't crimes before. Also, if the sentencing becomes more stringent after you committed your crime, you can't be given the harsher sentence. But I don't know if you can get the lighter sentence if it goes the other way.

You are correct. Since it can't be retroactive for declaring something illegal, I would assume it can't be retroactive for declaring something legal.

Anything else wouldn't make sense. What would make sense would be changing the law to make it legal AND granting amnesty to the person who broke the law (Bush). Amnesty, a pardon, whatever it is. But I don't believe you can make something retroactively legal.

United State v. United States District Court
(commonly called Keith decision)
re spying domestically

http://cryptome.org/keith-decision.htm

...In the Keith decision, the Supreme Court, while recognizing the President's constitutional duty to "protect our Government against those who would subvert or overthrow it by unlawful means," held that the power inherent in such a duty does not extend to the authorization of warrantless electronic surveillance deemed necessary to protect the nation from subversion by domestic organizations.

not a mere mortal.

time in pergatory for eatn meat on Friday...so I would say you were still a criminal?

I always wondered if they're all in there still suffering for eternity

That's called an ex post facto law, and the Constitution prohibits it. You might be convicted under a law that expired or was repealed after the act. Depending on the nature of the repeal, it doesn't necessarily void past convictions. For example, if it was illegal to hunt moose in October, and you did so and were jailed or fined, and the next day the legislature changes the hunting season, you're still guilty. It was a crime when you done it, so you shouldn't have done it. On the other hand, sometimes the repeal of a law voids past convictions. I'm not sure of the details of this, and to what extent it is legislative and to what extent judicial.

Overturning a law (as opposed to repeal) voids past convictions. In Virginia, it was illegal for blacks and whites to marry. An activist, liberal Supreme Court (yay!) voided that law in 1967. If any were serving sentence at the time, their lawyers could get them out on the grounds the law was unconstitutional.

But a strong argument can be made that a law legalizing behavior, which in the past was criminal, should always be made retroactive, such that all prosecutions would be dropped, and all people serving prison sentences should be released or pardoned. An example would be if using/dealing marijuana was legalized. If I had a client serving time for an act which was legalized, I would also pursue getting his/her legal record wiped clean of the conviction. So I can understand why the Rs are hustling to protect Bush. However, there's another legal principal that one doesn't pass legislation which benefits only one legal entity, whether an individual or a corporation or organization.

but could * just give himself a presidential pardon for the wiretaps? How fart does presidential power extend in terms of pardons?