It doesn’t violate any part of ex post facto. It doesn’t increase or change the punishment of the law. It doesn’t retroactively levy penalties or liabilities. It literally just increases the length of time for a suit.
The rest of your comment is just fear mongering around something that isn’t accurate.
Not a single argument besides your is on ex post facto, it’s literally about ‘fairness’ to the people accused. None of the justices brought up ex post facto, so your point is pretty ridiculous to begin with.
This has nothing to do with me, it has to do with your argument that this is unconstitutional due to ex post facto, which is just absolutely wrong. You’re trying to shift the argument to support your viewpoint, rather than admitting you’re wrong about the law. You can easily switch your argument to “it’s not fair” like the justices have claimed. Or you can recognize that scientific progress has been made to realize that the law was never right and was never effective at doing what it said.
In regards to “dig into your history”, that’s an absolutely insane comment to make. This isn’t making something illegal that wasn’t illegal, it’s making it so that those people that did illegal things can still be prosecuted.
It doesn’t violate any part of ex post facto. It doesn’t increase or change the punishment of the law. It doesn’t retroactively levy penalties or liabilities. It literally just increases the length of time for a suit.
The rest of your comment is just fear mongering around something that isn’t accurate.
Smith v Doe literally already decided this argument 2 decades ago. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smith_v._Doe
Not a single argument besides your is on ex post facto, it’s literally about ‘fairness’ to the people accused. None of the justices brought up ex post facto, so your point is pretty ridiculous to begin with.
Tyler how do you feel about statute of limitations? Or should i dig into your history to find something to find you liable against the government?
This has nothing to do with me, it has to do with your argument that this is unconstitutional due to ex post facto, which is just absolutely wrong. You’re trying to shift the argument to support your viewpoint, rather than admitting you’re wrong about the law. You can easily switch your argument to “it’s not fair” like the justices have claimed. Or you can recognize that scientific progress has been made to realize that the law was never right and was never effective at doing what it said.
In regards to “dig into your history”, that’s an absolutely insane comment to make. This isn’t making something illegal that wasn’t illegal, it’s making it so that those people that did illegal things can still be prosecuted.