[twoodfin]

Way back to Calder v. Bull in 1798, the U.S. Supreme Court has held that the ex post facto restriction applies to criminal law, not civil matters like taxation.

Unusual retroactive taxation could face a due process challenge, but the basic "pass a tax law January 20 that extends backwards to January 1" kind of retroactivity has been upheld several times.

[mindslight]

Just because the Supreme Council condones something does not mean that it is consistent with the Constitution (which is itself only relevant because it's USG's purported charter).

[jessedhillon]

Just because the Supreme Council condones something does not mean that it is consistent with the Constitution...

Assuming that by "Supreme Council" you mean "Supreme Court" -- that is exactly what it means. There is no way to determine whether or not a thing is in accordance with the Constitution other than to ask a court to decide. It's called The Rule of Law.

The other system is called, "internet randos and other people with Ron Paul signs in front of their house decide what the Constitution means." I'll take the first one, thank you.

[mindslight]

So then according to your viewpoint, the text of the Constitution is an opaque blob to anyone besides the SC. Since there's no way for an individual to judge for themselves whether the government's charter is being followed, we must simply accept any decree from the ruling council of nine. This does not sound like "The Rule of Law" to me.

[jessedhillon]

The personal opinions of private citizens are not binding whereas judgments are. Ergo, opaque blob or not, unelected and unappointed citizens don't get to pass binding interpretations of the Constitution. Everyone has an opinion, but only specific people are empowered to enforce their interpretations and the rest of us agree to limit us only democratic channels to influence that mechanism. That is the rule of law.

If you have some alternate proposal whereby it can be determined whether or not the Constitution is being followed, I'm happy to hear it. So far you have not even demonstrated that you understand the meaning of the word "constitutional," as you declared unconstitutional a mechanism which is literally specified in the Constitution, so I am dubious of any system which would elevate the opinion of any random person to the level that it would be constitutionally binding. We already have a system for assessing the will of the majority.

[mpyne]

You can have your own opinion all you like. The one the government will operate by (with certain historical exceptions...) is the Supreme Court's.

[mindslight]

Well obviously. The problem comes about when someone wishes to rule out the idea that the SC can make faulty judgments by construction (usually because they wish to keep believing that USG has not failed horribly at its design goals).

[mpyne]

> The problem comes about when someone wishes to rule out the idea that the SC can make faulty judgments by construction

I think you're talking past each other.

Obviously the Supreme Court can get decisions wrong (not just "the context was different then" but actually wrong; e.g. Dred Scott).

But the point is that for the purposes of the government and of the law there is no higher arbiter than the Supreme Court so if they get a Constitutional interpretation "wrong" in your humble opinion then it still won't matter that you or anyone else disagrees; in the interim the government and the courts will use the new precedent.

Saying in essence that "other people can have their own opinions about the Constitutionality of a Supreme Court decision is tautologically true; how can it add to a discussion? You might as well mention that water is wet. For that reason it's easy for other people viewing that comment to believe you meant something else entirely...

[jessedhillon]

The problem comes about when someone wishes to rule out the idea that the SC can make faulty judgments by construction...

That's what it fucking means to be supreme! There is literally no higher authority unless you want to start shooting people! If you don't like a Supreme Court ruling you can only petition the court to reverse itself or amend the Constitution. By definition, the Supreme Court is the highest legal authority, ergo if they make a "mistaken" ruling (according to whom?) there is no higher legal authority to express that conclusion. So yes, by construction no power exists to override the court, only to amend the Constitution. Faulty judgments are part of the system, the rule of law is the system whereby you agree to operate within this system, even when rulings are made which you personally object to.