The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a Tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person.
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.
No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.
No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken.
No Tax or Duty shall be laid on Articles exported from any State.
No Preference shall be given by any Regulation of Commerce or Revenue to the Ports of one State over those of another: nor shall Vessels bound to, or from, one State, be obliged to enter, clear, or pay Duties in another.
No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law; and a regular Statement and Account of the Receipts and Expenditures of all public Money shall be published from time to time.
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 of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State.
Notes to Decisions
Ex post facto laws.
District court correctly dismissed defendant’s probation revocation proceedings as the full-credit statutory provision in effect at time of defendant’s 2004 arrest, 66-8-102 NMSA 1978, applied to the calculation of his sentence credit and probation could no longer be revoked after it expired, U.S. Const. art I § 9, N.M. Const. art II § 19; by the time of his revocation hearing defendant had completed his probation and earned full credit against his maximum possible sentence. State v. Ordunez, 2012-NMSC-024, 283 P.3d 282, 2012 N.M. LEXIS 278 (N.M. 2012).
Instructions.
Use of jury instructions taken from the New Mexico Uniform Jury Instructions-Criminal in defendant’s first degree murder trial, although his information was filed before the date on which their use became mandatory, did not violate N.M. Const. art IV § 32, U.S. Const. art I § 9, U.S. Const. amends. XIV, or an order of the New Mexico Supreme Court; nothing in the order prevented use of the instructions before the required date. State v. Valenzuela, 1976-NMSC-079, 90 N.M. 25, 559 P.2d 402, 1976 N.M. LEXIS 865 (N.M. 1976).
Research References and Practice Aids
New Mexico Law Review.
Article: Reflections on Fifteen Years of the Teague v. Lane Retroactivity Paradigm: A Study of the Persistence, the Pervasiveness, and the Perversity of the Court’s Doctrine, Lyn S. Entzeroth, 35 N.M. L. Rev. 161 (2005).