This is something maybe 90% of the country agrees is evil...and yet our legislatures and Congress enable this to happen.
If you thought you lived in a free country, and that our law enforcement organizations are purely noble and want to protect you, and you are innocent until proven guilty, you might want to watch this video.
because we know those Activist Liberal judges would have put a stop to these forfeiture laws.
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
But yeah, it’s essentially a shakedown of poor folks right now.
If they don't: then it will be confirmed that the Constitution is dead, even though most people won't know it yet. The body will be on the operating table, warm and with a beating heart, but the brain is dead, dead, dead. I would never say we kill the patient...but there will be no reason for me to pretend a recovery is imminent. And people who think things are they way they should be, and that the current events are just an aberration and the patient will get up off the table soon...those people are delusional.
(no message)
Libertarian vs. Statist, which means the Pauls vs. the Bushes...and Dershowitz vs. HRC. Put me down with Rand and Ron Paul, and Alan Dershowitz.
We don't really know which side Roberts will come out on, do we? I'll believe he is for the Constitution when I see it. The mental gymnastics he performed to get to his decision on health care does not give me confidence.
narrowly. Pisses some of the activists on the Right off.
There is no way that civil forfeiture is constitutional. It is seizure without due process. If confiscating money without hearing or trial or anything is ok, when the Constitution specifically states that "[t]he right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated," then anything goes. Allowing civil forfeiture is judicial activism in its purest form.
I could easily see the Court ruling that the clause is incorporated by the 14th Amendment making it applicable to the states, and that the forfeiture needs to be comensurate with the crime, but not entirely disallowing the civil forfeiture process.
That is the type of incrementalism that Roberts likes. How it fits into restraint versus activism is obvious. Ruling on the narrowest grounds is a central tenant of judicial restraint.
"[T]he forfeiture needs to be comensurate with the crime" ... interesting. And there is typically no crime related to the money seized. That is kind of the point. You seem to be avoiding basic facts here in order to justify theft.
Call it restraint, activism, or incrementalism. Either way, it is a taking without a crime or hearing. It cannot be reasonably justified. I'm quite surprised you think it it ok.
But you may want to read up on the subject. The claim is that the forfeiture constitutes an excessive fine under the 8th Amendment. Also, the DP afforded varies from state to state. Of course you know more about it though.
Commensurate with the crime is the major issue. You have people losing significant property that they need like vehicles and houses for relatively minor crimes. That is excessive. On the other hand, forfeiture of millions from el chaps obviously derived from his illegal business is not excessive.