7.The prohibitions against ex post facto laws, and by implication, bills of attainder, while intended mainly for criminal penalties, such as disablements of life, limb, or liberty, but also include disablements of property, when such disablements are of a vested right in property. 8.The law treats individuals as two persons, a private person with private rights, and a public person with public rights, which are those that are constitutionally protected. Chase attempts to define vested right but does so only partially. 10.In constructing provisions of the Constitution, Justices Chase and Paterson presume that provisions of the Constitution are not redundant, which is not valid, since several of the provisions state overlapping or redundant concepts. This case raises fundamental questions about just what is the difference between a civil and a criminal proceeding.
Any judicial petition is to disable some rights of the defendant.
A civil case is to disable private rights of the defendant, and the plaintiff may be either a private person or a government representing its people. It may seek damages for a prior injury, under common law, or injunction, specific performance of a contract, or mandamus of a public duty, under equity. A criminal case is to disable public rights of the defendant, which can include life, limb, liberty, or vested property, and although it may be prosecuted by a private person, must be prosecuted in the name of the people, in accordance with a public statute prohibiting an act of the defendant, which prescribes disablements of public rights as a penalty for that act. A criminally prohibited act can be malum in se, an actual injury to someone, or malum prohibitum, which is normally justified as an attempt to prevent injury. But opening legislation to preventive measures is dangerous.