Talk:Calder v. Bull

"only applies to criminal laws" ? - poorly supported by citation
The fact that the US constitution allows for no such exclusion in Ex Post Facto Law should be enough to place this statement in great doubt. Where is this exclusive nature required in the ruling? I have edited this stated claim out until someone can support this reading more convincingly, rather than simply pasting from another website this repeated over-simplification.

As stated in the opinion of judge Chase in this Calder v. Bull court decision (the opinion from which this article derives): "In my opinion, the true distinction is between ex post facto laws, and retrospective laws. Every ex post facto law must necessarily be retrospective; but every retrospective law is not an ex post facto law: The former, only, are prohibited."

Chase then delineated four (criminal OR punitive) situations to be INCLUDED as ex post facto laws as stated in the article, followed by "All these, and similar laws, are manifestly unjust and oppressive." Chase did not, therefore, profess to exclusively delineate the sum total of what are ex post facto laws, as is frequently claimed.

Wikibearwithme (talk) 00:25, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

I think you should re-read the source. This is pretty basic stuff.

Also: If the term "ex post facto" law as used in the U.S. Constitution were not limited to criminal laws, the phrase would also apply to other kinds of laws. That would in essence mean that, for example, other kinds of laws could not be applied retro-actively. Clearly, the term "ex post facto law" (as used in the U.S. Constitution) does not apply to non-criminal laws. Famspear (talk) 15:24, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

I added some more citations. There are some kinds of non-criminal laws that cannot be applied retro-actively -- but that has nothing to do with the ex post facto clause. That has to do with other provisions of the Constitution, such as "a taking of property rights without due process of law", as noted by LaFave and Scott in Criminal Law, p. 98, West Publishing Co. (2d ed. 1986). Famspear (talk) 15:33, 16 February 2018 (UTC)


 * PS: The citation to Calder v. Bull would indeed be sufficient to support the statement that the ex post facto provision applies only to criminal laws, even in the absence of the other citations I added. Indeed, the courts themselves -- and eminent legal scholars, cite Calder v. Bull for this point.


 * Also, most legal terms in the U.S. Constitution (for example, "ex post facto law," "due process," "equal protection", etc., are not specifically defined in the text of the Constitution. Don't let that throw you off. Famspear (talk) 16:58, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

No idea what the case was even about.
If anyone is actually curious what Calder v Bull was even about, try a page like https://www.oyez.org/cases/1789-1850/3us386

THE WIKIPEDIA ARTICLE GIVES *NO* IDEA WHAT THE CASE WAS EVEN ABOUT!! 2405:9800:B910:3D5C:2178:1267:D971:F3FC (talk) 10:07, 22 January 2024 (UTC)