 |  |
| | |
Is the "No Extraditions" in conflict with the US ConstitutionItem 8, which is on "extraditions" definitely seems to conflict with the US Constitution on extraditions which isArticle IV, Section 2, Clause 2which provides for the extradition of a criminal back to the state where he or she has committed a crime. And for that reason I plan to delete it from the initiative.
SNIP Does the RAD initiative violate the Ex Post Facto law?I originally posted this here.I need to fix that and add a blurb about how I was kicked out of Safer Arizona for complaining that Tom Dean was turning the Safer Arizona initiative into a mini version of the MPP or Marijuana Policy Project's evil Prop 2005. Somebody seems to think this blurb in the RAD initiative which I believe is also in the Safer Arizona initiative may violate the ex post facto laws in the US Constitution. Article I, Section 10, Clause 1, of the U.S. Constitution covers ex post facto laws. It says: No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility. All the reading I have done on it seem to say that ex post facto laws are only unconstitutional when they increase the penalties for a crime. Not when the give a pardon. Any comments on this? While the RAD initiative gives automatic pardons, Tom Dean modified the Safer Arizona initiative so you have to request a pardon. SNIP Does Item 3 conflict with US Constitution?The same person who raised the first question also thought this might be unconstitutional. But personally I think this is 100% solid and constitutional.
|