ConLawIIOutline-Amit - Con Law II Outline Big Class Rights...

Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–2. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Rights listed in the Constitution 1. Privileges and Immunities Clause of Article IV, says that States may not discriminate against out-of-staters with respect to the privileges and immunities. The most prominent one was the right to earn a living. 2. Article I, Section 9, says privilege of writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended unless in cases of rebellion or invasion public safety may require it (SUSPENSION CLAUSE). Generally, it cannot be suspended. Writ of habeas corpus – it is a vehicle to test the legality of Government custody of an individual. Ex – Incarceration (examines the custody). Habeas is a type of procedural right. Congress cannot suspend it b/c Constitution. is specific to when it can be suspended. Congress may regulate it. Congress requires that State principles first exhaust their state remedies and has placed restrictions on repetitive fillings. 3. Article I, Section 2: Contracts clause – prohibits the states from impairing the obligation to Contracts. State and Local Gov. If federal government charged with impairing, then individual could not bring up this right. 4. Article I, Section 9 – prohibits Fed. Gov. from bill of attainder and ex post facto rules. Article I, Section 10 – same prohibition with respect to States. No state shall pass any bill of attainder. Ex Post Facto – State and Fed. Are prohibited from enactment. Statute that takes conduct that was innocent, when the conduct was engaged in and retroactively makes that conduct a crime. retroactively making something a crime. Easiest example. Notice concept. If legislature is going to criminalize particular conduct, the legislature should give people notice to what is and is not criminal. Ex Post Facto Clause also prohibits and retroactively increasing the penalty. Was once a misdemeanor and now a felony. Same notice problem. Eliminate a defense retroactively same problem. USSC says that too is unconstitutional law. Retro eliminating a defense is not allowed. Another level – lets say there is a session, and they change a rule of evidence. Maybe the legislature makes a change in doctrine of vicarious admissions. Legislature might change some procedural rule. On these types of issues, USSC says ex post facto clause does not prohibit mere procedural changes even if it is made retroactively. Difference b/w substantive and procedural – Elimination that Rape Testimony had to be corroborated. Prosecutor would claim mere procedural change. Justices were divided but ultimately held that this is not a mere procedural change, here, it is a change that makes it easier for the prosecutor to secure a conviction. A change by the legislature, that is applied by the legislature is an unconstitutional ex post fact law. Ex:
Background image of page 1

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
Image of page 2
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

This note was uploaded on 04/17/2008 for the course LAW ? taught by Professor Schwartz during the Spring '08 term at UConn.

Page1 / 71

ConLawIIOutline-Amit - Con Law II Outline Big Class Rights...

This preview shows document pages 1 - 2. Sign up to view the full document.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Ask a homework question - tutors are online