Daniel Troy initially lays out his case against retroactive legislation with considerable skill and clarity. In a nutshell, Troy's thesis is that retroactively applied legislation is contrary to established norms of Anglo-American jurisprudence and should be used sparingly, if at all, in modern lawmaking. Troy saves his harshest criticism for environmental legislation aimed at cleaning up toxic waste dumps, the so-called Superfund legislation. This is an interesting and important topic. It is a constitutional problem that has been underappreciated, if not missed entirely, by most constitutional scholars.
Troy misses an excellent opportunity to write a memorable and useful book.
This is neither an illogical nor indefensible argument, although it is more controversial and difficult than Troy acknowledges. The real problem is that the author takes a profound and in many ways persuasive general argument against retroactive legislation and attaches it to one of the least compelling examples available. It is roughly akin to arguing against the use of torture because the noise made by screaming victims violates local noise abatement laws and is bad for business. There are, as Troy persuasively points out, some serious legal, moral, and economic problems with retroactive legislation. The reasons for this odd approach seem to be both ideological and professional.