On September 5, a U.S. District Court declined to force the city of Warren, Michigan, to let its Mayor, James Fouts, run for another term. Fouts v Warren City Council, e.d., 2:23dv-11868. Here is the opinion.
The city’s term limits law for Mayor was changed twice in the past. It went from allowing three terms, to allowing five terms, and then back to allowing only three terms. Fouts has already served four terms. After the Michigan state courts interpreted the term limits law to apply to this year’s election, Fouts filed a federal case, alleging that the restriction violates the U.S. Constitution, because the change could be said to have applied retroactively to him. The U.S. District Court agrees that Fouts has a right to go to federal court, because the issues in his federal case are different than the issues in his state case. But he said the U.S. Constitution does not protect Fouts from the term limits law, despite the apparent retroactive application to him. Thanks to Thomas Jones for this news.
As to the argument that Fouts filed his federal case too late, the court said there is no need to discuss that issue, given its analysis of the main issue. The federal lawsuit was filed only a few days before the August 8 primary.
Buh bye.
I would rather see age limits.
WARREN IS A LARGER SUBURB NE OF OLDE DETROIT.
Term limits and age limits both sound good to me.
APPEAL TO 6 CIR USA CT APP LIKELY.
https://www.detroitnews.com/story/news/local/macomb-county/2023/09/05/fouts-civil-rights-lawsuit-dismissed-without-a-hearing/70766590007/
Fouts to appeal federal judge’s decision dismissing lawsuit
Hopefully to be upheld, then.
I AM A WHALE! FOR TOO LONG THE SEA HAS BEEN POLLUTED AND NEGLECTED!
MAJOR POINT – LAW CHANGES IN FUTURE ONLY –
UNLESS PAST MENTIONED — RETROACTIVE CIVIL STUFF.
Ex post facto laws are unconstitutional, and the principle preceded that too.
Absolute Zero IQ Aborted Zombie AZ supports ex post facto laws, such as his claim that the 14th amendment can shield government from compensating people who held what was legally held property before that amendment passed.
https://www.detroitnews.com/story/news/local/macomb-county/2023/09/08/fouts-appeals-judges-ruling-that-kept-him-off-ballot/70800184007/
Warren Mayor Jim Fouts appeals federal judge’s ruling that kept him off ballot
The Detroit News
Warren ― Warren Mayor Jim Fouts filed an appeal Friday of a federal judge’s dismissal of his lawsuit to decertify the mayoral primary.
Fouts filed the appeal with the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit, which is based in Cincinnati, just days after U.S. District Judge George Steeh dismissed his lawsuit, which was filed in early August. In it, he alleged his civil rights were violated when he was barred from pursuing another term and requested that a special election be held with his name on the ballot before the November general election.
“Mayor Fouts and his counsel respectfully disagree with the District Court’s opinion that Mayor Fouts’ constitutional rights were not violated by the Warren City Council’s actions to exclude Mayor Fouts from running for mayor of the City of Warren in the upcoming election,” read a statement from Fouts through his law firm.
—
EX POST FACTO = CRIMINAL ONLY
TOO MANY CONLAW TROLL MORONS TO COUNT.
It’s criminal for the government to seize legally owned property, regardless of laws passed after the fact. If next year the Green Party wins and outlaws owning cars, and seizes all the cars and every other internal combustion vehicle and not compensate the owners they are the ones violating the law.
Also where does no ex post facto law shall be passed distinguish criminal or civil? AZ is the moron here.
Confiscation of legally held property is a criminal penalty. Despite a wrongly decided supreme court case, the plain language and original intent of the ex post facto language in the constitution was meant to cover both criminal and civil penalties. The point was that people should know which actions would result in being deprived of life, liberty, or property.
Under what legal theory can government declare a certain type of property no longer legal and seize it without compensation, even though it was previously legal?
Another supreme court case decided that retroactively requiring lawyers to swear they had not rebelled against the US or lose their professional license was an ex post facto law. Losing a professional license is not a criminal conviction.