# Is retroactive legislation constitutional? **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [August 16, 2018, 7:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-retroactive-legislation-constitutional/819744 "2018-08-16T19:29:22Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 19\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Moriarty](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/moriarty/32/49_2.png) [@Moriarty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Moriarty)\ **Post date:** [August 17, 2018, 6:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-retroactive-legislation-constitutional/819744/21 "2018-08-17T18:27:21Z")
> [@Northern\_Piper](#): > > Where does Congress get the power to criminalise conduct in churches? I’m willing to concede that there may be issues here, but where does Congress get the power to make banks subject to federal jurisdiction? From a brief google search, it looks like bank robbery was made a federal crime in 1934, and it looks like the federal aspect is that the banks are subsidiaries of the federal reserve system > [@18 USC 2113(f)](#): > > As used in this section the term “bank” means any member bank of the Federal Reserve System, and any bank, banking association, trust company, savings bank, or other banking institution organized or operating under the laws of the United States, including a branch or agency of a foreign bank (as such terms are defined in paragraphs (1) and (3) of section 1(b) of the International Banking Act of 1978), and any institution the deposits of which are insured by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation. So, yeah, it’s a stretch to figure out some federal authority over church property. Maybe some angle along the lines of being federally tax exempt? As I said, I realize it may not work. ---
**Author:** ![Northern\_Piper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/northern_piper/32/5304_2.png) [@Northern\_Piper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Northern_Piper)\ **Post date:** [August 17, 2018, 7:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-retroactive-legislation-constitutional/819744/22 "2018-08-17T19:01:20Z")
Banks are clearly involved in inter-state commerce. But the Supreme Court held in _Lopez_ that the commerce power wasn’t sufficient to support a ban on gun possession near a school: > **[United States v. Lopez](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Lopez)** > > United States v. Alfonso D. Lopez, Jr., 514 U.S. 549 (1995), was a landmark case of the United States Supreme Court concerning the Commerce Clause. It was the first case since 1937 in which the Court held that Congress had exceeded its power to legislate under the Commerce Clause. > The case arose from a San Antonio high school student's challenge to the Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990 (part of the Crime Control Act of 1990), which banned possession of handguns within 1,000 feet (300 meters) of ... ---
**Author:** ![Northern\_Piper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/northern_piper/32/5304_2.png) [@Northern\_Piper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Northern_Piper)\ **Post date:** [August 17, 2018, 9:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-retroactive-legislation-constitutional/819744/23 "2018-08-17T21:04:00Z")
Oops. I see I didn’t finish my post. Just meant to add that by the _Lopez_ analysis, how can the commerce clause support federal criminalising of an assault, just because it’s in a church? ---
**Author:** ![Alley\_Dweller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/alley_dweller/32/430_2.png) [@Alley\_Dweller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Alley_Dweller)\ **Post date:** [August 17, 2018, 10:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-retroactive-legislation-constitutional/819744/24 "2018-08-17T22:05:32Z")
> [@Moriarty](#): > > As I understand it, at the federal level, the statute of limitations for sex assault extends to the life of the victim (and sometimes beyond). If there was a way to get these priests into federal court, they are still able to be prosecuted. The issue is jurisdiction - Could the transfer of priests across state lines make it a federal issue? What about if they ever took trips out of state with the kids? > > If I’m in Congress, I would be considering laws to make churches subject to federal jurisdiction, so that any assault on church property would be a federal crime. One of the most horrendous and notorious child abusing priests began his career in Illinois. The first victim came forward something like 30 years after he had been assaulted. The Illinois statute of limitations had long since run. But the priest had a habit of taking his victims to a retreat house in Wisconsin. (Ironically, the house was owned by the parents of one of his victims.) Wisconsin law tolls (suspends) the statute of limitations for non-residents while they are out of state. So he couldn’t be convicted in Illinois, but they got his first conviction in Wisconsin, because he didn’t spend much time there. Since then, he has also been convicted in Arizona and on federal charges of taking boys on international trips. There was also recently [a case in Illinois](http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/ct-met-federal-charges-condom-crime-20180517-story.html) where a police officer was accused of having sex with underage girls. The federal penalty was worse than the state penalty, so they wanted to try him on federal charges. One of the justifications they used for federal jurisdiction was that he used condoms manufactured in a foreign country. He took a plea bargain, so the condom theory never got tested. Frankly, I’m all in favor of severe punishment for this kind of crime, but I’m not sure I like the message “use a condom, go to jail longer.” ---
**Author:** ![Warm\_blood](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/df705f/32.png) [@Warm\_blood](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Warm_blood)\ **Post date:** [August 18, 2018, 1:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-retroactive-legislation-constitutional/819744/25 "2018-08-18T01:44:19Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > \*\*Here’s the other point. Memories get crappier and crappier the longer they exist. \*\* > [Abuse Survivors Push to Abolish the Statute of Limitations | TIME](http://time.com/5368078/pennsylvania-statute-of-limitations-catholic-church-abuse/) > > “Currently, the statute of limitations law allows victims of child sex abuse to come forward with criminal allegations until they are 50 years old. Victims can file civil claims until they are age 30. Most of the allegations in the grand jury report go back decades; many of the victims are in their 60s and 70s – meaning they are years past the time when criminal charges can be filed.” > > Now in this case there are also contemporary paper records, but the testimony of those abused 30 years ago is frankly worthless. > > [McMartin preschool trial - Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McMartin_preschool_trial) I personally think that statute of limitations should exist for the bolded reasons, but a caveat should be made for cases where the crime was documented contemporaneously in some form (recorded testimony, unprocessed rape kits, etc.). ---
**Author:** ![Projammer](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/projammer/32/559_2.png) [@Projammer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Projammer)\ **Post date:** [August 18, 2018, 2:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-retroactive-legislation-constitutional/819744/26 "2018-08-18T02:03:54Z")
The fact that the SoL has already passed for many of the victims isn’t a reason not to extend the SoL. I have no doubt that there are far too many more incidents that are still prosecutable under the current limit that won’t be revealed until it’s currently too late. [https://imgur.com/gallery/lRmd0dh](https://imgur.com/gallery/lRmd0dh) ---
**Author:** ![naita](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/naita/32/5862_2.png) [@naita](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/naita)\ **Post date:** [August 18, 2018, 3:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-retroactive-legislation-constitutional/819744/27 "2018-08-18T15:33:37Z")
> [@Chronos](#): > > The Constitution doesn’t say anything about statutes of limitations specifically, because the Constitution is really vague about all sorts of things. But it does guarantee a right to a speedy trial, and one could argue that a statute of limitations is one manifestation of that right. Seems like a weak argument to me. If you want a speedy trial, turn yourself in right away. It’s not like statue of limitation laws are based on criminals challenging the constitutionality of not having been given a speedy trial, right? ---
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [August 18, 2018, 3:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-retroactive-legislation-constitutional/819744/28 "2018-08-18T15:44:06Z")
Turn myself in for what? I didn’t do it. And if you had asked me before, instead of waiting ten years when all of the evidence had dried up, I could prove it. ---
**Author:** ![JRDelirious](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jrdelirious/32/9531_2.png) [@JRDelirious](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JRDelirious)\ **Post date:** [August 18, 2018, 4:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-retroactive-legislation-constitutional/819744/29 "2018-08-18T16:03:42Z")
> [@Projammer](#): > > The fact that the SoL has already passed for many of the victims isn’t a reason not to extend the SoL. I have no doubt that there are far too many more incidents that are still prosecutable under the current limit that won’t be revealed until it’s currently too late. Indeed, this is true and has been done in many cases already, but it then requires the clarification of what is intended by the proposal. Extending the pending term is not the same thing as retroactively restarting an expired term. ---
**Author:** ![naita](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/naita/32/5862_2.png) [@naita](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/naita)\ **Post date:** [August 18, 2018, 4:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-retroactive-legislation-constitutional/819744/30 "2018-08-18T16:07:33Z")
> [@Chronos](#): > > Turn myself in for what? I didn’t do it. And if you had asked me before, instead of waiting ten years when all of the evidence had dried up, I could prove it. I you trying to imply there’s an implied presumption of innocence in the justice system or something? :smack: ---
**Author:** ![MEBuckner](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mebuckner/32/2896_2.png) [@MEBuckner](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MEBuckner)\ **Post date:** [August 18, 2018, 6:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-retroactive-legislation-constitutional/819744/31 "2018-08-18T18:28:34Z")
Indeed, a statute of limitations [may very well not apply](https://blogs.findlaw.com/blotter/2014/03/fleeing-from-justice-what-can-happen.html) if the accused has deliberately fled to avoid prosecution. But if Alice is just innocently going about her business, unaware that she’s even a suspect, blithely destroying old potentially exculpatory records (“Oh, another box of old receipts showing I was out of town on the night of August 18, 2003? Well, I’ll certainly never need _those_”) then of course the statute of limitations does apply, and the state needs to make its case in a timely manner or let the issue drop. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [August 19, 2018, 1:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-retroactive-legislation-constitutional/819744/32 "2018-08-19T01:10:07Z")
For what it’s worth, the speedy trial guarantees and the statute of limitations do not measure the same time frame. Typically, a speedy trial clock starts at the moment of arrest, or at the moment the indictment is unsealed if the indictment precedes the arrest. Speedy trial statutes typically provide both a minimum time where trial cannot commence, and then a maximum time by which trial _must_ commence. The accused can waive both those time periods, agreeing to a quicker trial or agreeing to extend the beginning of the trial date. The criminal statute of limitations typically begins to run when the crime is complete. For some crimes, this is simple: if you break into my house and shred my priceless Vermeer on Tuesday January 10th, then the clock starts on that date. But if you steal it, keep it hidden for seven years until you think the statute of limitations has run, and then sell it, you’re in for a surprise: keeping the painting is a continuing offense, and the statute of limitations clock hasn’t even started yet, much less ended. ---
**Author:** ![kaylasdad99](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kaylasdad99/32/3398_2.png) [@kaylasdad99](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kaylasdad99)\ **Post date:** [August 20, 2018, 9:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-retroactive-legislation-constitutional/819744/33 "2018-08-20T09:03:20Z")
nm ---
**Author:** ![ZurBob](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/71e660/32.png) [@ZurBob](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ZurBob)\ **Post date:** [August 20, 2018, 11:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-retroactive-legislation-constitutional/819744/34 "2018-08-20T11:38:09Z")
> [@kaylasdad99](#): > > nm What does this mean? Sorry for the trivial aside, but this has perplexed me for years. ---
**Author:** ![jonesj2205](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/ecc23a/32.png) [@jonesj2205](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jonesj2205)\ **Post date:** [August 20, 2018, 12:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-retroactive-legislation-constitutional/819744/35 "2018-08-20T12:08:19Z")
> [@ZurBob](#): > > What does this mean? > Sorry for the trivial aside, but this has perplexed me for years. Never mind. Usually typed, posted, thought better of it, edited to read nm. ---
**Author:** ![kayaker](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kayaker/32/441_2.png) [@kayaker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kayaker)\ **Post date:** [August 20, 2018, 12:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-retroactive-legislation-constitutional/819744/36 "2018-08-20T12:15:21Z")
> [@ZurBob](#): > > What does this mean? > Sorry for the trivial aside, but this has perplexed me for years. Abbreviation for the latin phrase non curae sibi est. ---
**Author:** ![ZurBob](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/71e660/32.png) [@ZurBob](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ZurBob)\ **Post date:** [August 20, 2018, 12:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-retroactive-legislation-constitutional/819744/37 "2018-08-20T12:16:14Z")
Thank you. ---
**Author:** ![ZurBob](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/71e660/32.png) [@ZurBob](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ZurBob)\ **Post date:** [August 20, 2018, 12:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-retroactive-legislation-constitutional/819744/38 "2018-08-20T12:27:16Z")
> [@kayaker](#): > > Abbreviation for the latin phrase non curae sibi est. Dolor asinum ! 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![kayaker](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kayaker/32/441_2.png) [@kayaker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kayaker)\ **Post date:** [August 20, 2018, 12:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-retroactive-legislation-constitutional/819744/39 "2018-08-20T12:39:26Z")
That’s me Herc, that’s me! [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-retroactive-legislation-constitutional/819744.md?page=1)