Lt. J. Paul Vance is now the face of the gun-grabbing liberal establishment. Anyone following the stalemate in Connecticut have probably listened to or read transcripts of his conversation with a person claiming to be the wife of a person on the confiscation list. What Vance revealed is the true heart of those in law enforcement today.
"I don't want to talk about the Constitution. At all," he states at one point when asked if he had taken an oath to the Constitution in connection with the subject of constitutionality of the ex post facto law making hundreds of thousands of Connecticut citizens retroactive felons. I bet he didn't want to talk about the Constitution, because he has no understanding of it.
Just so it is clear to Vance and other law enforcement officers who might attempt a door-kicking session over a clearly unconstitutional law, it is the duty of the officer to know the law and to follow the law. When one swears to uphold the Constitution (the question being asked when he made the statement above) one needs to read it, first. It is their duty not to engage in enforcement of clearly unconstitutional laws, they are void and illegal. The law will not protect them from their actions.
Let me call Vance's attention to Article 1, Section 9, Third clause:
No bill of attainder or ex post facto law shall be passed.
And just so Vance doesn't think this just applies to the Congress and federal law, the Constitution reiterates this sentiment in Article 1, Section 10, First clause:
No State (emphasis mine) shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.
So when they do engage in the door-kicking they have threatened, they might review this from the Supreme Court:
In Stogner v. California, a sharply divided Supreme Court ruled that a law extending a criminal statute of limitations after the existing limitations period expires violates the U. S. Constitution’s Ex Post Facto Clause when it is applied to revive a previously time-barred prosecution (123 S. Ct. 2446 (2003)). The case arose from the 1998 trial and conviction of Marion Stogner for sexually abusing his daughters between 1955 and 1973. Justice Breyer delivered the Court’s opinion, joined by justices Stevens, O’Connor, Souter, and Ginsberg. His analysis turned on the nature of the harms that California’s law created, past Court decisions, and the long line of authority holding that a law of this type violates the Ex Post Facto Clause.
Justice Kennedy filed a dissenting opinion, joined by justices Rehnquist, Scalia, and Thomas. In his view, the law was permissible because it (1) did not criminalize previously innocent conduct, (2) limited the punishment the prosecutor could seek to that authorized by law at the time the offense was committed, and (3) did not alter the government’s burden to establish the elements of the crime. He also disagreed with the majority’s interpretation of prior cases. Source
When Vance claimed, in his now infamous tirade, that until the Supreme Court rules that it is not an illegal law, it is a legal law, he might want to view the case above with the understanding that the Connecticut law does precisely what Justice Kennedy claimed that the California law did not, which is criminalize previously legal conduct.
The Supreme Court has ruled on this issue, granted the above case had to do with extending statute of limitations where illegal behavior had been committed, the Connecticut law is in conflict with this ruling for the reasons Kennedy cited in writing the dissent.
From the source cited above, it is clear that Connecticut has a bad habit of writing ex post facto laws as the source continues to see how that ruling would affect other Connecticut cases soon to go before the Court.
If there is one single law that should be passed in the states and in the federal government it should be that no office which must swear an oath to the Constitution can be occupied by any individual who cannot demonstrate before a diverse panel a knowledge of the Constitution.
There is plenty of time between the election and the inauguration to study, to read and demonstrate a full understanding of the document they swear to uphold and defend.