It's nowhere near as clear cut as you make it out.
There are even plenty of examples in the page you link of justifiable ex post facto laws. For example war crimes.
To be honest, because of the devastating long term effects of environmental pollution, and the deaths it has caused, I would quite happily argue that laws applying to it could be ex post facto. Crimes against future generations.
I remember covering this in my philosophy degree and you can argue about it for hours. The example I remember was Nazi collaborators who reported on Jews or resistance fighters or even falsely accused neighbours.
They got people killed, often maliciously, but what they did was perfectly legal at the time. Should they have gotten away with their complicity or should they have ex post facto laws brought against them?
In the time of the US founders, the scale of damage a single human or company could conceivably do for profit was a lot less.
There are even plenty of examples in the page you link of justifiable ex post facto laws. For example war crimes.
To be honest, because of the devastating long term effects of environmental pollution, and the deaths it has caused, I would quite happily argue that laws applying to it could be ex post facto. Crimes against future generations.
I remember covering this in my philosophy degree and you can argue about it for hours. The example I remember was Nazi collaborators who reported on Jews or resistance fighters or even falsely accused neighbours.
They got people killed, often maliciously, but what they did was perfectly legal at the time. Should they have gotten away with their complicity or should they have ex post facto laws brought against them?
In the time of the US founders, the scale of damage a single human or company could conceivably do for profit was a lot less.