the Constitutional prohibition is on ex post facto convictions ... not on ex post facto expungements. I don't argue FOR it, but I also don't see a great argument AGAINST it.
-
-
Replying to @MorlockP
GP The argument goes that if you're willing to ignore laws you consider stupid, even if the laws are in fact stupid, you're likely to do so again. It's a data point for judges and employers in the future to consider.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Gormogons
> The argument goes that if you're willing to ignore laws you consider stupid, even if the laws are in fact stupid... go onpic.twitter.com/sNy8ofj7h1
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @MorlockP
GP Let me know when potheads succeed in casting off an oppressive foreign government. Then I'll consider that line of argument.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Gormogons
so your argument is "might makes right", not an ethical one ? Fascinating
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @MorlockP
GP My argument is the victor writes the history. And simply working within an extant system to legalize something previously prohibited isn't proof the law itself was immoral.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Gormogons @MorlockP
GP For example, abortion used to be illegal. Now it's legal. Is the legalization of abortion on demand a good thing?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Gormogons
We both agree that victors write the history, and the laws. I'm suggesting that electoral victory counts too. Isn't that the American way?
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
-
GP I'm not arguing (and haven't) they *can't* do something I consider a bad idea, I'm arguing they *shouldn't* and putting forth my reasons. That's it. I'm in favor of paring back laws and regs. I'm not in favor of pretending a person didn't do what he did in the first place.
2 replies 0 retweets 2 likes
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.