Someone please explain ex post facto laws to Trump

FOX News moved to hypothetical situation to drill down on Trump’s illegal immigration plan this week.  Bill O’Reilly asked Donald Trump about a hypothetical illegal immigrant couple with two children who are American citizens and whether Trump would deport them (at minute 7:34 in this YouTube video).  Trump insists he will deport them and then bring them back in an expedited fashion.

Megyn Kelly hit Ted Cruz with this same kind of question and he didn’t answer it, but instead laid out a rather comprehensive list of measures to take to secure the border and deal with illegal immigration.

Trump’s fans will cheer that he stayed tough on illegal immigration, but the truth is Trump does not seem to know anything about The Constitution and frankly every American should have learned this in junior high civics class.  Trump has NO authority to deport American citizens!  NONE!  And even if he thinks he can get the 14th Amendment repealed or Congress to write a new law, the FACT is every anchor baby currently in the US is now, and forevermore, will remain a US citizen.  A fundamental founding principle in The Constitution is we will not have any ex post facto laws.  Cruz, being a brilliant constitutional scholar knows this, but Trump and his angry followers don’t really care about The Constitution, it seems – only on and on spewing about Mexicans and other foreigners.

To make America great again, I suggest, every Trump supporter start learning about America’s founding principles.  We are a Republic, not a banana republic.


Filed under American History, General Interest, Politics, The Constitution

11 responses to “Someone please explain ex post facto laws to Trump

  1. JK

    Allow me please to Preface by saying I’m not a Lawyer and I’m not about to start playing a Lawyer either on TV or the Internet.

    While I agree that Constitutionally-speaking there are to be no ex-post-facto laws Our Wonderful Congress (in its infinite Wisdom – very many of which Congresses Members are Lawyers) has in recent times come up with a term most usually referred to as “retroactive.”

    Although my understanding is limited because primarily as I Prefaced, I am not a Lawyer I’ve noticed “most” instances I’m aware of are either in the Regulatory or Administrative arenas of Law a couple of instances in Criminal Law come to mind although I’m not personally (and likely “very thankfully”) up on the particulars but one being, I believe, titled something along the lines of The Adam Walsh Law and the second being something to do with “Alleged Domestic Abuse & Firearm Possession Restrictions.” (Quotes around the latter because where I’m seeing those most frequently are in newspaper/blog articles – *where an actual Conviction was not necessary for the Imposition in fact, all that was [apparently] needed was an Allegation.

    However there is one instance I’m “somewhat more” knowledgeable of though not in the particulars especially – that having to do with The Fourth Amendment to the Constitution and The Patriot Act.

    • All excellent points JK, but revoking the citizenship of hundreds of thousands (perhaps millions) of Americans? Holy cow, I am amazed that any conservative would jump on this populist train, when I expect conservatives to cling to our founding principles.

      • JK

        True enough as far as it goes LB but, you do remember all the “promises” the, er, conservatives McConnell Boehner etc made in the run-up to the last (I suppose in these days of Never-Ending Campaign I ought qualify by) most-recent vote by the electorate which, just the most obvious:

        “If we manage to regain the Senate thereby controlling both Houses of Congress – the very first thing we’ll do is de-fund Obamacare!”

        *Founding Principles* indeed where the Congress manages the purse-strings.

        So. How’d that work out?


        Just personally mind – but I’m not so particularly bothered with Trump’s hyperbole as I am the Establishment Republicans’ … forgive please the Arkie-Lingo fallback …

        Out ‘n out Bullshit.


        I’d thought to add – much is being made of Trump’s donating to prominent Democrats but … when the Republicans did manage the “takeover” of both Chambers … what changed?

  2. JK

    Oh. Above I typed “Alleged Domestic Abuse & Firearm Possession Restrictions.”

    A very much perfunctory look-back at the particular case I had in mind appears to’ve had “some” legal stuff happened in the meantime So I guess I ought change my word-choice (out of ignorance just plainly speaking) anyway rather than “Possession” – which, from my again Very Basic Understanding, I can understand why a mere Allegation MIGHT justify “a merely accused” … (now I can think of a few qualifiers .. Criminal History springs immediately to mind) … but blog comments ought be brief.

    So allow me to switch out Possession to “Ownership.”

    Still. I don’t think (but I reiterate I’m no Lawyer) a Retroactive Law is fundamentally different from an ex post facto Law.

    • I’m not a lawyer either and am going off my junior high civics class, where my teacher made us study various US Supreme Court decisions and assigned groups of us to argue a particular side. I like sticking to principles, so much of what passes muster at the Supreme Court in recent years causes me to cringe……. as I search for a firm Constitutional footing in the majority opinion, but I can usually console myself reading the dissenting opinion by Justices Scalia and Thomas to reassure myself, “alas, The Constitution still matters to some.”

      And as to what happened with a GOP controlled Congress – they lied and are still busily doing exactly what the Democrat-controlled Congress did.

  3. JK

    I made a mistake trying a comment (maybe on LB your WordPress) but as I was trying to background … my comment might got lost in the Internet ether

    Hopefully LB you can see what I’m getting at by “retroactive.”

  4. JK, I am reading some general information on citizenship rulings from the Supreme Court from my Oxford Companion to the Supreme Court and realizing there’s a lot of ambiguity on defining citizenship, but the Supreme Court rulings all move in one direction and it’s not in Trump’s direction.. I also read the court has “erected high barriers to deprivation of citizenship”, so I am not sold on the arguments Ann Coulter, who seems to be Trump’s legal adviser on illegal immigration, offers. So, I see issues like how could Trump deport birthright citizens, even under his proviso that the “good ones” will be allowed to have expedited reentry? Then, I am not sure if he intends to revoke their citizenship as he deports them? He’s vague. And if birthright citizens must go, does this apply to adults whose parents were illegals and what happens if the country their parents were from doesn’t have dual citizenship or they’re past the age required to choose one or the other, as some countries require. What if the parent’s home country won’t take them? And on and on and on my questions multiply.

    • And I wish a lawyer could tell me if all these illegal immigrants, who were granted refugee status by President Obama are untouchable by any of the measures to deport illegal immigrants?

      • JK

        Now I can’t say with any certainty – but didn’t that last bunch of new “legal” illegal immigrants have something to do with an Executive Order?

        If so – I’m not at all knowledgeable about that kinda stuff – the status legally I mean.

  5. Cory Wells

    How about the x post facto made by the Lautenberg Amendment?

    • Brian K

      Cory, I’ve seen your name before on other threads and wanted to comment on the ex post defacto of the Lautenberg amendment.
      in 1993 I was charged with disorderly conduct and plead guilty to a misdemeanor and was given one year of probation. Fast forward 23 years later, I applied for a real estate license and was denied because of a 1993 domestic violence conviction and subsequently learned that my ability to hold any professional license as well as my gun rights had been stripped in 1996 without my knowledge. My case was over for a full 3 years before the Lautenberg amendment was passed and they changed the conviction from disorderly conduct to domestic violence without notifying me of anything. I have just lost my job because it required me to hold a professional real estate as well as an insurance license which I am unable to do under this amendment. I have also learned that because of many company policies regarding domestic violence I’m basically unhirable. My punishment in 1993 was a simple fine and a year of probation. in 1996 it became a life sentence. Had I not applied for he real estate license and submitted a fingerprint card for the background check I would have never known.
      Please tell me how this can be constitutional?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s