According to Wikipedia, the US does not accept ex post facto law. I take this to mean that if someone did something that was later illegalized, that person cannot be penalized for his/her action. However, the way Wikipedia worded it, I don’t know if this is a hard and fast rule. It says:
So, if someone had slaves whilst having slaves was legal, would it be legally permissible for that person (or, as it may be, his/her descendants) be penalized for that?
WRS
Criminally? No.
The ex post facto clause in the Constitution would prohibit such a prosecution. That clause generally doesn’t prohibit civil statutes that have a retroactive effect, although I suspect such a law might fail for other reasons.
(I’d be very interested in the outcome if someone seeking to do business with the City of Chicago challenged its ordinance which requires that businesses seeking to do business with the city disclose all historical connections the business had with slavery. To my knowledge, no one has filed such a challenge.)
Well of course not, especially being as such a person would be dead by now and all. Protection against such a law is a pretty basic protection.
Why do you ask about such a specific and obscure case? Is anyone proposing that a living person be punished for having legally held slaves?
My first sentence was less than perfectly clear. Add the word “criminal” before the word “prosecution”.
I 'd wager that at least one corporation that owned slaves still exists today.
I was asking because reparations is somewhat of an issue, and I was wondering if by law someone could be forced to pay reparations. To me, it would only be permissible, legally speaking, if ex post facto was accepted in this case.
WRS
Criminally punished? Not that I’m aware of.
But the City of Chicago has enacted an ordinance which imposes at least an indirect civil cost on present-day businesses which have even a tenuous connection to pre-1865 slavery. (It requires research and disclosure of such ties if the business wishes to do business with the city. This research has a direct cost. Indirectly, it also has the practical effect of (usually) causing such businesses to make “donations” or fund “initiatives” to mitigate the offenses of long-defunct predecessor companies.
The sponsor of the bill is on record as saying the one purpose of the ordinance is to facilitate subsequent reparations suits.
The only proposals for reparations I have heard would have reparations paid by the U.S. government.
All reparations lawsuits of which I’m aware have (so far at least) been quickly dismissed or thrown out on summary judgment.
No. Suits have been filed against private corporations.
Well this more comes into account recently concerning child molestation cases and priest. Can the state deny the statue of limitations in child molestaion? Well, those are not federal crimes and I don’t beleive (believe me IANAL) so I think that they have made exceptions to ex post facto in those cases. Perhaps I a totally wrong on this. Better to check with one of our in-house legal experts, as I am sure that they will check in soon.
Umm… and who funds the U.S. government?
And weren’t those ony proposels? 
Well if the federal government wants to pay reparations (to whom? who decides?) then they can do it with their money. That in no more punishment to me as a taxpayer than if they decided to fund any other silly project I did not like.
No doubt!
I’m a slave to my job. Where is my check from gobernont? :wally
No doubt.
Si Amigo. This is GQ. We don’t use the putz smiley here, especially directed at another poster.
You were warned in the last week by MEBuckner about using that smiley. Don’t do this anymore.
samclem GQ moderator
Somewhat indirectly but yes and they admit to it, Wachovia Corp.