Alright, I'm responding to Senator Gottesman now. What do you all think of Article 23 in the NH bill of rights regarding retrospective laws....
Would this seatbelt legislation not fall under retrospective due to the fact that any data the legislators gather would indeed have to be from years past?
Making a retroactive law would be punishing someone for something they did last year, when the law did not yet exist.
Example: Last year it was legal to give someone a shampoo for money. This year they make a law saying you have to have a license. If they try to make the law so that it covers what people did last year, then it would run afoul of Article 23.
[Art.] 23. [Retrospective Laws Prohibited.] Retrospective laws are highly injurious, oppressive, and unjust. No such laws, therefore, should be made, either for the decision of civil causes, or the punishment of offenses.
The article says civil causes or punishment.....wouldn't a seatbelt mandate be a civil cause?
Don't misunderstand me here. I'm genuinely trying to figure this stuff out....I'm not being blockheaded, I'm just trying to learn how to interpret the constitution.....18th century colonialist as a language wasn't an offered course at my high school!! ;)
Hi Rodinia,
The clause you mention only refers to the act of making a law retroactive. If they made a seatbelt law retroactive to Jan. 1, '05, for instance, then anyone not wearing a seatbelt after then, but before the passage of the bill, would be guilty in the eyes of the law, even though the law had not yet been passed. That is why retroactive laws in NH are illegal.
Thanks for help clarifying everyone!! I just got off the phone with James Pilliod. I used my gender to my advantage!! He was very sweet and kind and gave me all sorts of information!!! I'm so ashamed of myself...NOT!!
Go girl!!
I love it. :)
The Federal Government loves to do retroactive laws ....like raising taxes as of the first of the year. >:(