[Kadmos1]

[SIZE="3"][SIZE="3"]Assistant Prof. of Law Evan C. Zoldan at the University of Toledo College of Law wrote a nearly 60-page research paper called "The Civil Ex Post Facto Clause" on 7/23/14 but revised it nearly 16 months later.

On its Social Science Research Network page, the Abstract says the following:

Since its first interpretation of the Ex Post Facto Clause in Calder v. Bull, the Supreme Court consistently has held that the clause applies only to retroactive criminal, but not civil, laws. The consequences of this distinction are far-ranging, permitting, for example, states to keep offenders behind bars after they have served their sentences. The Court’s distinction between civil and criminal retroactivity is based wholly on Calder’s historical conclusion that the original meaning of the Ex Post Facto Clause included criminal laws only. This article demonstrates that Calder’s historical analysis is wrong.

After examining historical evidence that never before has been considered by scholars or judges interpreting the Ex Post Facto Clause, I conclude that the original meaning of the clause encompassed civil as well as criminal laws. This new evidence calls for a reconsideration of Calder and raises the intriguing possibility of greater judicial scrutiny of civil retroactivity. I also examine the most common doctrinal, structural, and normative arguments for retaining Calder and, based on this new historical analysis, offer new ways of approaching these arguments.

What are some web articles (up to 10 pages if printed out) that have evidence ex post facto also applies to civil? I eventually want to write to my local Congress rep that retroactive copyright extensions fall under this prohibition. I would have to include some evidence and opinion letters from legal experts that share such a view. When e-mailing that rep a link to a petition page that agrees ex post facto should include civil and that it should be brought up at a Congress meeting, I think it would need at least 100,000 signatures.