Don't drive while in possession of cash.
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.
Replies to: Don't drive while in possession of cash.
Republicans should have allowed Obama his SC justices - this issue would have been fixed
because we know those Activist Liberal judges would have put a stop to these forfeiture laws.
Total nonsense.
(no message)
Let's revisit this post after this June's decision, Ned.
(no message)
We will get to see soon how much smoke you are blowing. it's headed to the SCOTUS this session.
There are hundreds of examples, no trial, not even guilty, bye bye moola.
(no message)
There is an unreasonable fines/forfeiture case before SCOTUS this term. Should be interesting.
But yeah, it’s essentially a shakedown of poor folks right now.
If there is justice, SCOTUS will once and for all declare civil forfeiture unconstitutional.
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.
Well Roberts is now the fifth, so expect some incremental improvement, but not a broad pronouncement
(no message)
This issue is not really partisan, though. It's libertarian vs. statist, not right vs. left.
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.
Agree, but you are also talking judicial restraint versus activism. Roberts likes to decide
narrowly. Pisses some of the activists on the Right off.
Judicial restraint vs. activism. OK. How does "deciding narrowly" figure into that?
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.
As usual you overstate things. First of all it’s an excessive fines claim under the 8th Amendment.
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.
Incorrect. No fine is levied and collected. All cash is taken regardless of amount. You are reaching
"[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.
I don’t think it’s okay. I am predicting what the Court may do.
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.