Ellingburg v. United States · ¶27

Many believed that no constitutional prohibition was necessary because an ex post facto law would be invalid as contrary to natural law. At the Constitutional Convention, Oliver Ellsworth argued that “[i]t cannot . . . be necessary to prohibit” ex post facto laws because “no lawyer, no civilian . . . would not say that ex post facto laws were void of themselves.” 2 M. Farrand, Records of the Federal Convention of 1787, p. 376 (1966) (Farrand). James Wilson thought that a constitutional prohibition on ex post facto laws would suggest that the Convention denied that such laws were already forbidden by natural law, to its embarrassment. “It will bring refexions on the Constitution—and proclaim that we are ignorant of the first principles of Legislation.” Ibid. In fact, “[a]ll the delegates who spoke explicitly or implicitly regarded an ex post facto law as a violation of natural law, and…

preliminary print (page proof)
Source edition
Passage preview. Read in context for the complete text, notes and references.