nostr:npub1uxz060za0sz7uzncy45jcksak2lr9wks0hrgug54cvpm9ma8agkqs35ma4 nostr:npub1ec73me5a6pwv2lcwg6qxtugu6py6weh934w0muvngxup967x800qn3933z I think the ex post facto argument is compelling, but not a slam dunk. I think you could reasonably argue that lifetime protection is not so much an individual benefit for the protectee, but rather serves a national interest in not having former presidents harmed by those seeking to use violence to influence policy.
nostr:npub1ec73me5a6pwv2lcwg6qxtugu6py6weh934w0muvngxup967x800qn3933z
Secret service for life is by statute:
https://www.archives.gov/about/laws/former-presidents.html
I didn't research whether retroactively changing this statute would violate the ex post facto prohibition, but my gut tells me that it would. It's not a criminal statute, but change the consequences for behavior.
But I didn't do the research, just going from gut.
Discussion
nostr:npub1uxz060za0sz7uzncy45jcksak2lr9wks0hrgug54cvpm9ma8agkqs35ma4 nostr:npub1ec73me5a6pwv2lcwg6qxtugu6py6weh934w0muvngxup967x800qn3933z Also, as far as the barrier to imprisonment, the statute says that the Secret Service protects former presidents, but it doesn't specify HOW they must accomplish that. It would probably be legally sufficient for them to work with prison authorities to develop and approve a plan for protecting him, without having to have a 24 hr personal USSS bodyguard in physical proximity.