 |
| Mike DeWine |
Well, it's clear to me, and I am not a politician. Guess it doesn't take brains to be a politician these days. Mr. DeWine, maybe you should go back to school and read the Constitution, which you took an oath to defend. Passing laws and forcing new penalties onto people who have already served their time or been convicted, is an ex post facto law, which is unconstitutional. I don't know how much clearer the judge can be here.
07/26/2011
By David Eggert
Attorney General Mike DeWine asked the Ohio Supreme Court yesterday to clarify a recent decision that struck down parts of the state's sex-offender law that had been applied retroactively to crimes committed before the law took effect in 2008.
- Just think about it for a minute Mr. DeWine, I know it may be hard to think, but just try. Retroactive, that means something done after the fact. So if you had a DUI, say 20 years ago, and were convicted of it, the law cannot come back and punish you again for that same offense, which is exactly what this sex offender law is doing, thus it's unconstitutional. Doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure that out.
- Do you need some pretty pictures to spell it out for you? See --->
The confusion, in part, is because the justices in the majority "entangled" federal and state constitutional law, according to the motion. Prosecutors also are worried the high court's ruling on retroactive laws could put at risk a wide range of civil laws and ordinances.
- Good, if they are passing ANY retroactive laws, they should also be deemed unconstitutional!
On July 13, the Supreme Court ruled 5-2 that the sex-offender law had been changed so much to the detriment of offenders that it violated the Ohio Constitution. The ruling will affect about 7,000 sex offenders who have tougher reporting and registration requirements.
- Yes, they have tougher reporting and registration requirements, which is the problem, it's ex post facto punishment, and unconstitutional.
