Ex Post Facto - Is the GOP decriminalizing Bush's NSA wiretapping?

Uncovering a Conspiracy to protect the Executive from Prosecution.

The President has violated federal law and the Constitution by enacting his own law in violation of FISA. Legislative GOP leaders are taking steps to enact legislation to retroactivly protect the President from prosecution.

Ex Post Facto - Normally this is when a law is passed that retroactively creates a crime on actions that were previously legal. One can prosecute retroactively. But can one party specifically create a law to protect the President from prosecution? The question now is can a law be made to retroactively make a crime a non-crime after it was committed? GOP activities concerning altering laws around FISA and the NSA spy scandal smack of a Ex Post Facto law which decriminalizes and former criminal activity with regard to protect the Presidency.

Legal definitions of Ex Post facto include the converse and in a case concerning the punishment of first time drug offenses have NOT BEEN retroactively applied. In other words when a person is convicted of a crime and sentenced that sentence holds despite a change in punishment. It can however have an effect on the parole of an individual.

It appears that the legality of any law enacted by the GOP controlled legislative branch that protects the president from prosecution could be subject to legal challenge on the grounds it's intent was to retroactively alter the legal consequences of an action thus the law becomes a Ex Post Facto law. It's intent is to alters the legal consequences of a action for a specific person. I do not think exceptions to the Ex Post Facto ban include action to protect a specific individual from prosecution for their actions. If the intent is to correct unfair punishment of a population then the intent if based on fairness and equality. Clearly in this case it is not.

Legal researchers: What is needed is a case law example of a law declared Ex Post Facto or a conviction of elected officials who conspired to protect another official through legal means by enacting a law that protects an elected official from prosecution. I believe that intent and conspiracy to protect a corrupt elected official from prosecution through legislation must of been encountered in this nation's history.

An example would be of a city government passing a law to protect a mayor from legal scandal. Zoning, gifts, bribes or procedural rules or powers granted Ex Post Facto.

Background on Ex Post Facto legislation from the what I could find.

The constitution states clearly a ban on Ex Post Facto laws that alter the legal consequences or a crime that set the accused at a disadvantage.

From http://www.usconstitution.net/glossary.html#EXPOST:

In U.S. Constitutional Law, the definition of what is ex post facto is more limited. The first definition of what exactly constitutes an ex post facto law is found in Calder v Bull (3 US 386 <1798>), in the opinion of Justice Chase:

1st. Every law that makes an action done before the passing of the law, and which was innocent when done, criminal; and punishes such action.
2d. Every law that aggravates a crime, or makes it greater than it was, when committed.
3d. Every law that changes the punishment, and inflicts a greater punishment, than the law annexed to the crime, when committed.
4th. Every law that alters the legal rules of evidence, and receives less, or different, testimony, than the law required at the time of the commission of the offense, in order to convict the offender

President Bush claims to of been given authority to do initiate the warrant less spying on various grounds...his defense could be deemed a "Mistake of Law" defense. Many statues exist in this regard one example is New YOur state's:

NY Penal Law Section 15.20 (2) A person is not relieved of criminal liability for conduct b/c he engages in such conduct under a mistaken belief that is does not, as a matter of law, constitute an offense, unless such mistaken belief is founded upon an official statement of the law contained in (a) a statute or other enactment, or (b) an administrative grant of permission, or (c) a judicial decision of a state or federal court, or (d) an interpretation of the statute or law relating to the offense, made or issued by a public servant, agency, or body legally charged or empowered w/ responsibility of administering, enforcing, or interpreting such statute.

Given the exceptions to "Mistake of Law" it is clear that the Bush administration had a defense in place if knowledge of the NSA wiretapping ever became public. SImply by officially stating a defense that is in keeping with common exceptions to the "Mistake of Law" defense.

However much of this defense is refutable given the clear intent on the part of the Bush administration to circumvent federal law and engage in warrant less spying. Clearly the discussions with the members of congress about the NSA spying program would constitute a clear intent to circumvent the law. Thus any actions by congress to legislate a retro active protection legislation should be seen as a conspiracy and thus any such legislation would be found to be in violation of the constitutional Ex Post Facto ban.

This is a extremely important legal point. If the President in conjunction with congress is allowed to pass Ex Post Facto laws to protect the executive branch from prosecution without legal challenge then our democracy will of failed and so too would the rule of law. At this time the United States is not suffering an rebellion or invasion that would constitute the protection of Presidential powers such as Lincoln encountered in the the Civil War under Taney vs. Lincoln.

Basically even if the GOP creates legislation to grant the president power to violate the constitution G.W. Bush's implementaiton of the NSA spy scandal would not be retro-activly included in any Legislative change made by congress. At the time...G.W. Bush violated an existing statue thauy any action by memebers of his own party would be seen as intent to protect him from prosecution and could essentially be declared unconsitutional under the Ex Post Facto ban.

it could be done. Hope it isn't.

But the prohibition of ex post facto laws is to protect the individual from being held responsible for an act that was legal at the time he committed it.

In the reverse case, it would be to prevent the President from being prosecuted for a crime which the Repukes decided should not have been a crime. You and I disagree, of course. But I don't see as how that changes their right or power to do it, as they run Congress. AFter all prosecutors can refuse to prosecute crimes for various reasons including "cutting a deal", jurors can refuse to convict if they think conviction would be an injustice, even if the evidence is overwhelming.

But a legal challenge to such a law is bound to fail.

Can a government body conspire to protect a official from prosecution by changing the law after the fact?

I can think that RICO can actually be used in this. As it is already been ruled that a government body can be considered an "organization" and obstruction of justice is part of RICO.

I see attempts at obstruction of justice...right now Bush is caught red-handed and what really matters is how many are going down with him.

It would be very bad in the future for any GOP senator or congressman to attempt to obstruct an investigation into a crime authorized by the President.

certainly change the law after the fact. Then, perhaps, they could be prosecuted for conspiracy. I don't think it's grey, at all. A law passed because some lobbyist conspired with a senator and a congressman to get his amendment slipped into some bill, is still the law, and I see no difference.

Stated that if no statute existed at the time of the action....then no low was broken. In this case if the action goes against a known statue, then even a Ex Post Facto law would not exonerate the action from prosecution because a law was browkn at the time.

The big issue here is so many believe that Bush acted within his authority. This has been shown by numerous legal minds to not be the case.

So now continued refusal to prosecute is simply adding more fuel to the fire. Eventually, Bush and the GOP will be held acocountable for breaking the law and obstructing justice.

As I see it right now our Democracy is gone for as long as Bush goes unchecked.