Epstein Secrets

irected to Congress (§ 9, cl. 3), the other to the States (§ 10, cl. 1). We have construed the Clauses as applicable only to penal legislation. See Calder v. Bull, 3 Dail. 386, 390-391, 1 L.Ed. 648 (1798) (opinion of Chase, J.). EFTA00201260 Case 9:08-cv-80811-KAM Document 78 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/08/

ty principle finds expression in several provisions of our Constitution. The Ex Post Facto Clause flatly prohibits retroactive application of penal Iegislation.FN19 Article I, § 10, cl. 1, prohibits States from passing another type of retroactive legislation, laws "impairing the Obligation of Contracts." T

irected to Congress (§ 9, cl. 3), the other to the States (§ 10, cl. I). We have construed the Clauses as applicable only to penal legislation. See Calder v. Bull, 3 DaII. 386, 390-391, 1 L.Ed. 648 (1798) (opinion of Chase, J.). These provisions demonstrate that retroactive statutes raise particular concerns.

ty principle finds expression in several provisions of our Constitution. The Ex Post Facto Clause flatly prohibits retroactive application of penal Iegislation.FN19 Article I, § 10, cl. 1, prohibits States from passing another type of retroactive legislation, laws "impairing the Obligation of Contracts." T

irected to Congress (§ 9, cl. 3), the other to the States (§ 10, cl. I). We have construed the Clauses as applicable only to penal legislation. See Calder v. Bull, 3 DaII. 386, 390-391, 1 L.Ed. 648 (1798) (opinion of Chase, J.). These provisions demonstrate that retroactive statutes raise particular concerns.

ty principle finds expression in several provisions of our Constitution. The Ex Post Facto Clause flatly prohibits retroactive application of penal Iegislation.FN19 Article I, § 10, cl. 1, prohibits States from passing another type of retroactive legislation, laws "impairing the Obligation of Contracts." T