Reply To: Cato Inst. files amicus brief to Supreme Court in ex post facto case


The argument for civil regulation and ex post facto has been often negated by what the intent of the legislature was. They argue it was not “intended” as punishment. They say for example, it’s no different than requiring a drivers license to drive. But, it is now much different. We arent just merely registering, we are being forbidden from public taxpayer lands(that we are forced to pay for, but are prohibited from enjoying a citizens right), and also other properties, residences, churches, parks, and in some cases even our homes for “public protection”. Right off the bat, our constitutional rights of freedom are deprived with regards to exclusionary zones with no evidence that it protects the public in any way, and we are subject to imprisonment as a result. It is so exceedingly punitive and discriminatory that it warrants evidence of effectiveness that would supercede any “intent” that it wasn’t meant to be punitive, discriminatory, or freedom restrictive.

It’s almost like requiring a drivers license, requiring you to pay taxes for roads, maintain insurance, register your vehicle and obtain a tag, pay inspection fees to the state…and then afterwards, the state legislates that you cannot drive on the public roads that you help pay for due to public protection. But, the states intent wasnt meant to be punitive though…but, if you do drive on public roads, straight to jail you go…