-and therefore found unConstitutional by Article I Section 9 of the U.S. Constitution? What's your opinion? It seems like it might be, but I'm not sure. In any case it is still socially exceptable, but do you think a line will have to be drawn eventually sometime in the future?
2007-05-17 06:48:07 · 6 answers · asked by resilience 6 in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
Maybe the idea that current law is somehow unConstitutional is absurd, but questioning it is important and must be maintained always.
2007-05-17 07:06:53 · update #1
You mean because it attempts to right past discrimination by imposing discrimination today? No, technically, Ex Post Facto, "out after the fact" refers to the comission of the crime. So if you were going back and arresting people for enforcing Jim Crow Laws in the 1940s, that'd be Ex Post Facto. Punishing thier children and grandchildren for thier sins is not. (Not that it's right, it's just not an Ex Post Facto Law).
2007-05-17 06:53:39 · answer #1 · answered by B.Kevorkian 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
i don't think so, but i'm no law expert. ex post facto is in regards to a punishment for an act that is now criminal, but legal in the past. affirmative action is the movement behind a whole number of government programs, right? Nobody is being PUNISHED...no sentences are being issued. there is no legal action, inasmuch as what the ex post facto idea was applying to.
i guess i see what you're saying; the contrast between social acceptability and illegality in a 'era' perspective is interesting.
as far as the future is concerned, i think affirmative action will be abolished because in addition to helping some people who wouldn't normally get into an institution, it is race-driven policy...something not sustainable through time in a true democracy.
2007-05-17 06:58:43 · answer #2 · answered by blue-in-groove 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
The idea that current law is somehow un-constitutional is absurd: there have been generations of lawyers dedicated to the task of destroying our constitution and they have largely succeeded.
Consider the law against speeding. It punishes you even though you may not have no injured anyone or done harm to anyone, either in the past or future. It is just it was decided that the average driver drives safely at the current speed (or at least that is the logic of the law). Affirmative Action should be similar: it may punish someone who commits no crime so that a greater good is achieved because the average minority is underrepresented (due to either past or current discrimination against most minorities) in college or at the work place.
2007-05-17 06:59:16 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
How could it be ex post facto? It doesn't retroactively change the consequences of an act. That would be punishing people for an act that was legal when it happened, which isn't what affirmative action does.
2007-05-17 06:52:41 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Affirmative Action should be done away with, we have so many government employees who can not do they jobs correctly and still get paid. Taxpayers pays more money so government agency can hire more people to take up the slack on the ones that can not do or want do their job because they know they can not be fired.
Let start giving jobs to the most qualified person so we can cut waste and money.
2007-05-17 06:56:47 · answer #5 · answered by bbj1776 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
No, it isn't ex post facto. It determines the process you must go through to HIRE someone one, not after they are hired.
2007-05-17 06:54:34 · answer #6 · answered by cyanne2ak 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋