It is important to notice how much the amendments describe things from the receiving side and the end effect of those prohibited actions more than those in Section 9. Look at how much hard it is, if possible at all, to take the amendments closer to the end from the side of the effect and the effected. Section 10 in the constitution spoke using high level words from Section 9 like "Tax", "Duty" and "Capitation" but that was related to actions between the state and the external world. Speaking about things like "Bill of Attainder" and "ex post facto Law", on the other hand, is intended to target the process first. Still all of that is within the domain of targeting the doer or the effecting side not the passive side affected by the action. But with things entirely internal to a state like dealing with its citizens and the prohibitions are about the effect and the passive side effected by that effect from any potentially capable effecting entity, as those in the amendments, there is a bigger opportunity to circumvent the high level talk used and still cause the same effect intended to be prohibited.
No comments:
Post a Comment