The ruling concerning the USAID grant by the Supreme Court was Constitutional. They maintained the sanctity of a contract as defined below. I suggest people read the ruling and understand that it applies to a portion of one USAID grant, not all foreign aid. The ruling states that only work done prior to the Trump administration’s freezing of payments was in question. In other words, the work completed before the freeze had to be paid as per the contract.
This ruling was not about an activist judge; it was about the rule of law and the sanctity of a contract. But the interesting part is that the portion of the Constitution for contracts applies to States, not the federal government.
I may not agree with the excessive fraud and criminal acts of the Deep States but in this case, work completed should be paid. If there is any question as to the quality of the work or fraud, that is a separate matter.
What is surprising is how easily our “side” is misled by the twisting of the truth.
David DeGerolamo
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
From Grok:
Referring to the principle of “ex post facto” laws, which is addressed in the U.S. Constitution. Specifically, Article I, Section 9, Clause 3 states:
“No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.”
This means that Congress cannot pass a law that makes an act illegal after it has already been committed. In other words, a person cannot be charged with a crime if the law criminalizing that act was enacted after they performed it. This protection applies to the federal government. Additionally, Article I, Section 10, Clause 1 extends a similar restriction to the states, saying:
“No State shall… pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts…”
The term “ex post facto” (Latin for “after the fact”) refers to laws that retroactively change the legal consequences of actions that were committed before the law was enacted. The Supreme Court has interpreted this to primarily apply to criminal laws, ensuring that individuals are protected from being punished for something that wasn’t a crime at the time they did it. This is a foundational safeguard for fairness and due process in the legal system.
