I swear, I was going to start a new policy of not talking about Balloon Juice stuff here, at least for a while, but this is just staggeringly dumb.

If our readers understand the title problem correctly, and I have no reason to think otherwise, foreclosures will probably grind to a halt for a while. Maybe a long while. It seems to depend on whether Congress can start writing ex post facto laws that apply to property rights. Maybe they can (it seems like they just tried), but that is a pretty central component of our whole democratic experiment. Imagine a Kelo decision that hoses two thirds of Americans who own a house. Or their lenders! Someone will pay for Goldman’s screwup, and few outside the head injury recovery ward expect it to be Goldman.

Err, no. No, no, no, no.

Congress absolutely cannot pass ex-post facto laws. This is very simple. Article 1, Section 9 of the U.S. Constitution expressly and absolutely forbids doing so:

No bill of attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.

See how easy that is? It’s one frikkin sentence.

And no, the recent e-notarization law was not an ex-post facto law. It would have affected the way notarizations are treated going forward, and that might have made it hard to prove that fraud occurred, giving an out of state/e-notary’s virtual stamp way too much credibility. That is not at all the same thing as passing a law that says something which was legal when you did it is now a crime, was a crime when you did it, and now you’re in big trouble, Mister.

Further, it’s not necessary that they pass some magical ex-post facto law. All the stuff that we’ve been talking about? False affadavits, fraudlent notarizations, cheating investors and Fannie and Freddie and such? Already against the rules. We don’t need a moratorium because it wasn’t illegal to do most of this shit (and the stuff that might not be illegal per se carried heavy financial penalties); we need a moratorium to stop the fraud mills from doing further damage until we can figure out who goes to jail, who goes bankrupt, and how we keep the rest of the banksters from doing this again in the future.

Then there was this gem:

Imagine it’s 2013 and a federal judge somewhere declares the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act unconstitutional. Imagine further that a group of Senators ask President Palin not to appeal the ruling. If she instructed Attorney General Christine O’Donnell not to appeal the ruling, would that be OK?

If it isn’t, then it’s not OK for the Obama administration to skip the appeal of the recent ruling against DADT.

First, Obamacare is unconstitutional. It goes light-years beyond Kelo, taking private assets without due process and handing them to murderous thugs in the insurance lobby, who provide no useful service in return. Nobody has ever done direct taxation for a private entity before; the IRS has never been a private bill collector before. This is bold, dangerous new corporatist territory.

Second, err, yeah, it would be ‘Ok’ for the Attorney General to decline appealing it. In that AGs have that authority; not every case gets appealed to the Supreme Court.

Nice to see once again how Good Liberals view gay rights though. Your fundamental standing as a human being is basically of the same value as a shitty high-deductible, bargain-basement insurance plan from Aetna.

What’s the co-pay on civil rights, anyway?

I’m going to go pick on someone else now.