﻿<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance" xmlns:xsd="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema" version="2.0">
  <channel>
    <copyright>Macmillan Holdings, LLC. Legal Lad, Legal Lad's, QDnow, and Quick and Dirty Tips are all trademarks of Macmillan Holdings, LLC.</copyright>
    <description>Today’s topic is the ex post facto clause of the Constitution.</description>
    <item>
      <author>Ryanlindly</author>
      <category>legal</category>
      <description>Great analysis, Legal Lad- I completely agree.  I've seen various populist postings condemning the retroactive immunity by invoking the ex post facto clause- and that is frustrating.  They don't understand that by condemning the actions with the ex post facto clause, they condemn all retroactive mitigation of sentences- potentially a great boon for the people.  I've been posting on such sites to alert people to their flawed analysis, now I'll just link your article.</description>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">http://legallad.quickanddirtytips.com/legal-ex-post-facto.aspx?commentid=11943#Comments</guid>
      <link>http://legallad.quickanddirtytips.com/legal-ex-post-facto.aspx?commentid=11943#Comments</link>
      <pubDate>Sat, 08 Mar 2008 22:50:59 GMT</pubDate>
      <title>Ryanlindly</title>
    </item>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 08 Mar 2008 22:50:59 GMT</lastBuildDate>
    <link>http://legallad.quickanddirtytips.com/legal-ex-post-facto.aspx</link>
    <managingEditor>feedback@quickanddirtytips.com (Managing Editor)</managingEditor>
    <title>Ex Post Facto</title>
    <webMaster>feedback@quickanddirtytips.com (Webmaster)</webMaster>
    <language>en-us</language>
  </channel>
</rss>