Article I, Section 9, Clause 3
No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.
The Federalist and Federalist essays
- cited bySuggestedAn American Citizen, Number IV, ¶ 8
Theſe have been called ex poſt facto laws, and are exploded by the new ſyſtem.
The paragraph names "ex post facto laws" as "exploded by the new system," which refers to the prohibition in Article I, Section 9, Clause 3. Article I, Section 10 also names such laws, as a restraint on the states; the paragraph does not say which it means.
- quoted bySuggestedA Native of Virginia, Article I, ¶ 92
No bill of attainder or•ex poſt facto law ſhall be paſſed.
The paragraph prints the clause of the Constitution on bills of attainder and ex post facto laws (Article I, Section 9, Clause 3) as signed; the quoted words are the same as the clause's (apart from capitals and the long s), though the pamphlet's punctuation differs in places.
- cited bySuggestedA Native of Virginia, Article I, ¶ 93
'Till that gentleman denied it, I had ſuppoſed it an univerſally received opinion that ex poſt facto laws were dangerous in their principle, and oppreſſive in their execution.
The paragraph defends the ban on ex post facto laws and bills of attainder against an objection "made a part of this clause," the clause printed above it (Article I, Section 9, Clause 3).
- cited bySuggestedFederalist No. 78, ¶ 9
By a limited Constitution, I understand one which contains certain specified exceptions to the legislative authority; such, for instance, as that it shall pass no bills of attainder, no ex-post-facto laws, and the like.
The paragraph gives "no bills of attainder, no ex-post-facto laws" as instances of exceptions to the legislative authority, echoing this clause's words. Low because it offers them as a general example of what a limited constitution contains rather than naming this clause, and the same words also appear in the prohibitions on the States in Article I, Section 10.
- quoted byReviewedFederalist No. 84, ¶ 4
…2 “The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it.” Clause 3 “No bill of attainder or ex-post-facto law shall be passed.” Clause 7 “No title of nobility shall be granted by the United States; and no person holding any office of profit or trust under them, shall, without the consent…
The paragraph quotes this clause in quotation marks, identifying it as "Clause 3" of Section 9 of Article 1.
- cited bySuggestedFederalist No. 84, ¶ 5
The establishment of the writ of habeas corpus, the prohibition of ex-post-facto laws, and of TITLES OF NOBILITY, TO WHICH WE HAVE NO CORRESPONDING PROVISION IN OUR CONSTITUTION, are perhaps greater securities to liberty and republicanism than any it contains.
Returns to the provisions quoted in the preceding paragraph, naming "the prohibition of ex-post-facto laws" from this clause.
Anti-Federalist essays
- quoted bySuggestedBrutus 2, ¶ 13
We find they have, in the ninth section of the first article declared, that the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless in cases of rebellion, — that no bill of attainder, or ex post facto law, shall be passed, — that no title of nobility shall be granted by the United States, &c.
The paragraph names "the ninth section of the first article" and reproduces the words of Article I, Section 9, clause 3.
- quoted bySuggestedCentinel 16, ¶ 1
By section 9th of the ist article, "No ex post facto law shall be passed." This sounds very well upon a superficial consideration, and I dare say has been read by most people with approbation.
The paragraph quotes the ex post facto clause of Article I, Section 9, which it names as "section 9th of the ist article" ("ist" is the scan's reading of "1st").
- cited bySuggestedFederal Farmer 4, ¶ 9
It is here wisely stipulated, that the federal legislature shall never pass a bill of attainder, or expost facto law ; that no tax shall be laid on articles exported, &c.
Says it is stipulated that "the federal legislature shall never pass a bill of attainder, or expost facto law," echoing this clause.
- quoted bySuggestedSydney 2, ¶ 13
By 1st art., 9th sec, 3d clause, " No bill of attainder or ex post facto law shall be passed."
The paragraph cites "1st art., 9th sec, 3d clause" and quotes it in quotation marks.
Other writings
- cited bySuggestedNew York convention, July 2, 1788, ¶ 19
Why is it provided that no bill of attainder shall be passed, or that no title of nobility shall be granted?
The speaker asks why "no bill of attainder shall be passed"; the words are part of Article I, Section 9, third paragraph, which also names ex post facto laws.
- quoted bySuggestedNorth Carolina convention, July 29, 1788, ¶ 57
This Constitution declares, in the most positive terms, that no ex post facto law shall be passed by the general government.
Cabarrus says the Constitution declares "that no ex post facto law shall be passed by the general government".
- quoted bySuggestedVirginia convention, June 17, 1788, ¶ 36
The 3d restriction is, that no bill of attainder, or ex post facto law, shall be passed.
Gov. Randolph says "The 3d restriction is, that no bill of attainder, or ex post facto law, shall be passed"; the words are not in quotation marks.
Debates in Congress
- cited bySuggestedHouse, May 8, 1866 (3), ¶ 99
The ninth section of the first article of the Constitution declares—"
The paragraph cites "the ninth section of the first article of the Constitution" and introduces the quotation of its bill of attainder clause in the next paragraph.
- quoted bySuggestedHouse, May 8, 1866 (3), ¶ 100
No bill of attainder or ex post facto law shall bo passed."
The paragraph quotes Article I, Section 9, Clause 3 in full, introduced in the paragraph before as "the ninth section of the first article" ("bo" is an OCR misreading of "be").
- cited bySuggestedHouse, January 23, 1869, ¶ 239
Consequently we find the wise and patriotic statesman to whom they assigned the duty of draftingthe Constitution of the Government they designed to establish providing in the ninth section of the first article of that instrument, that—
The paragraph cites "the ninth section of the first article" of the Constitution and introduces the clause quoted in the next paragraph.
- quoted bySuggestedHouse, January 23, 1869, ¶ 240
"No bill of attainder or cx post facto law shall be passed."
The paragraph quotes, in quotation marks, Article I, Section 9, Clause 3, introduced in the previous paragraph as part of "the ninth section of the first article" ("cx" is an OCR form).
- cited bySuggestedHouse, January 28, 1869 (3), ¶ 88
Following up that fundamental idea, the Constitution prohibited Congress from passing bills of attainder or ex post facto laws; and lest the States in the exercise of their reserved powers might at any time so far depart from the established principles of republican liberty and law as to…
The paragraph says "the Constitution prohibited Congress from passing bills of attainder or ex post facto laws", the prohibition of Article I, Section 9, Clause 3.
- cited bySuggestedHouse, February 6, 1947 (2), ¶ 258
Congress, for instance, is prohibited from passing expost facto laws, or laws that would impair the obligation of contract, or laws interfering with freedom of speech, freedom of the press, or religious freedom, and so forth.
The paragraph names the prohibition in the Constitution of ex post facto laws by Congress, which is Article I, Section 9, Clause 3.
- cited bySuggestedSenate, June 4, 1866, ¶ 24
As a penalty for crime this measure is ex post facto; and if it were a measure of ordinary legislation would therefore be unconstitutional.
The paragraph says that an ex post facto measure of ordinary legislation by Congress would be unconstitutional, naming the prohibition of ex post facto laws in Article I, Section 9, Clause 3.
- cited bySuggestedSenate, June 8, 1866, ¶ 148
The people, in forming a Constitution, said that Congress should pass no such bill. They surely possessed the power to authorize Congress to do so.
Speaking of a bill of attainder, the paragraph names the Constitution's prohibition on Congress passing one.
- cited bySuggestedSenate, March 7, 1947, ¶ 225
The Constitution provides that the Congress shall not pass an ex post facto · law or a law prohibiting freedom of religion, freedom of speech, or freedom of the press.
The paragraph names the provision of the Constitution that Congress shall pass no ex post facto law, which is Article I, Section 9, Clause 3.
The Supreme Court
Cases whose essays in the Constitution Annotated cite them under this clause, oldest first. Each link names the pages it comes from.
- interpreted bySuggestedCalder v. Bull (1798)3 U.S. 386, decided August 17, 1798
The Constitution Annotated's essays on this provision cite the case on 5 pages.
Source: Constitution of the United States of America: Analysis and Interpretation (2022 ed.), essays ArtI.S9.C3.3.2, ArtI.S9.C3.3.3, ArtI.S9.C3.3.4, ArtI.S9.C3.3.6, ArtI.S9.C3.3.7, ArtI.S9.C3.3.8, pp. 537, 538, 540, 544, 545.
- interpreted bySuggestedFletcher v. Peck (1810)10 U.S. 87, decided March 16, 1810
The Constitution Annotated's essays on this provision cite the case on 3 pages.
Source: Constitution of the United States of America: Analysis and Interpretation (2022 ed.), essays ArtI.S9.C3.1, ArtI.S9.C3.2, ArtI.S9.C3.3.1, ArtI.S9.C3.3.2, ArtI.S9.C3.3.3, pp. 532, 536, 538.
- interpreted bySuggestedCummings v. Missouri (1867)71 U.S. 277, decided January 14, 1867
The Constitution Annotated's essays on this provision cite the case on 7 pages.
Source: Constitution of the United States of America: Analysis and Interpretation (2022 ed.), essays ArtI.S9.C3.1, ArtI.S9.C3.2, ArtI.S9.C3.3.1, ArtI.S9.C3.3.10, ArtI.S9.C3.3.11, ArtI.S9.C3.3.2, ArtI.S9.C3.3.3, ArtI.S9.C3.3.4, ArtI.S9.C3.3.8, ArtI.S9.C3.3.9, pp. 531, 533, 536, 540, 546, 547, 548.
- interpreted bySuggestedEx parte Garland (1867)71 U.S. 333, decided January 14, 1867
The Constitution Annotated's essays on this provision cite the case on 3 pages.
Source: Constitution of the United States of America: Analysis and Interpretation (2022 ed.), essays ArtI.S9.C3.1, ArtI.S9.C3.2, ArtI.S9.C3.3.1, ArtI.S9.C3.3.2, pp. 531, 533, 536.
- interpreted bySuggestedTrop v. Dulles (1958)356 U.S. 86, decided March 31, 1958
The Constitution Annotated's essays on this provision cite the case on 3 pages.
Source: Constitution of the United States of America: Analysis and Interpretation (2022 ed.), essays ArtI.S9.C3.1, ArtI.S9.C3.2, ArtI.S9.C3.3, ArtI.S9.C3.3.1, ArtI.S9.C3.3.3, ArtI.S9.C3.3.4, pp. 532, 535, 540.
- interpreted bySuggestedUnited States v. Brown (1965)381 U.S. 437, decided June 7, 1965
The Constitution Annotated's essays on this provision cite the case on 2 pages.
Source: Constitution of the United States of America: Analysis and Interpretation (2022 ed.), essays ArtI.S9.C3.1, ArtI.S9.C3.2, pp. 531, 534.
- interpreted bySuggestedNixon v. Administrator of General Services (1977)433 U.S. 425, decided June 28, 1977
The Constitution Annotated's essays on this provision cite the case on 5 pages.
Source: Constitution of the United States of America: Analysis and Interpretation (2022 ed.), essays ArtI.S9.C3.1, ArtI.S9.C3.2, ArtI.S9.C3.3, ArtI.S9.C3.3.1, ArtI.S9.C3.3.2, pp. 531, 532, 534, 535, 536.
On Article I, Section 9 as a whole
- cited bySuggestedHouse, August 15, 1789, ¶ 3
- cited bySuggestedHouse, June 8, 1789, ¶ 29
- cited bySuggestedFederal Farmer 4, ¶ 9
Links marked “Suggested” were proposed by a machine and await review by a person. How links are made · Map of connections