4 ms·

I really hate that our legal system has, to a large degree, decided to a very, very narrow and very literal implementation of the Bill or Rights rather than goi

I really hate that our legal system has, to a large degree, decided to a very, very narrow and very literal implementation of the Bill or Rights rather than going with the Spirit of the law. Civil asset forfeiture as practiced by the government is very clearly contrary to 5th amendment. But since it's using a bullshit legal loophole of suing the property and not the owner and doesn't violate the literal words it's A-OK!

nickff 11y ago
If the courts interpreted the constitution more broadly, the 10th amendment would render most federal laws and regulations unconstitutional. Ever since the Wickard v. Filburn era (or arguably even before then), the courts have given the federal executive, legislature, and bureaucracy great deference.[1] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn
- dantheman 11y ago
  And that would be great, as it would force constitutional processes for large legislation, e.g. the war on drugs.
- marcoperaza 11y ago
  It's amazing what you can do when you threaten to pack the court. When the Supreme Court blocked a lot of New Deal and state-level regulations as unconstitutional, FDR threatened to appoint enough new justices to get the decisions he wanted (there is no limit to the number of justices in the Constitution). That was the end of the Lochner era of American jurisprudence and was a tragedy for freedom. We're still suffering the consequences today.
rayiner 11y ago
The legal system has not narrowly interpreted the Bill of Rights. For example, the First Amendment has been construed to preclude lots of restrictions on conduct that is not literally "speech." Everything from contraception to abortion to gay marriage has become a "right" even though nobody can point to the specific amendment that guarantees it. In the case of civil asset forfeiture, central to the Supreme Court's upholding of those laws was the fact that laws providing for civil forfeiture of contraband property were passed by the First Congress.
- Zigurd 11y ago
  The US constitution itself explains what is apparently mysterious to some people. Rights are not enumerated. Indeed, as long as they do not impinge on the rights of others they are limitless. Otherwise our rights would be mired in the context of 18th c. morals and technology, and would require constant amendments to keep up. We have a right to use encryption. Cryptocurrency. CRISPR. Etc. We have those rights. Why? Because nothing in the constitution says we don't. Otherwise the constitution would be unmaintainable.
  - rayiner 11y ago
    A statement that a list of rights is non-exhaustive does not mean they are limitless. The purported right must be found somewhere else. E.g. Buying alcohol on Sundays is not prohibited in the Constitution, but you don't have a right to that because blue laws were accepted at the time. Your idea of limitless rights turns Constitutional democracy on its head. Rights are exceptions to the power of the majority to regulate society. Limitless rights curtails democracy to nothing.
    - Zigurd 11y ago
      Your example about blue laws says nothing about rights. Blue laws regulate commerce but they don't prohibit anything outright. You can still drink on Sunday. If that restriction were to become too burdensome, a constitutional care could be made against it.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
- flubert 11y ago
  > Everything from contraception to abortion to gay marriage has become a "right" even though nobody can point to the specific amendment that guarantees it. 9 & 10? http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/bill_of_rights_transcript.html http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/bill_of_rights_tra...
jwatte 11y ago
The role of the legal system (and government) is to keep those worth the most, safe. As a consequence, it may sometimes also protect regular people because that makes the society that feeds and supports them safer. But make no mistake, 1 there is no real power other than the power of force, and 2 he who has the gold, makes the rules.
ahallock 11y ago
How can you sue property? That doesn't even make sense. It's like corporations are people. These are just "creative" ways to circumvent the constitution and rule of law.

nickff 11y ago

If the courts interpreted the constitution more broadly, the 10th amendment would render most federal laws and regulations unconstitutional. Ever since the Wickard v. Filburn era (or arguably even before then), the courts have given the federal executive, legislature, and bureaucracy great deference.[1] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn

dantheman 11y ago
And that would be great, as it would force constitutional processes for large legislation, e.g. the war on drugs.
marcoperaza 11y ago
It's amazing what you can do when you threaten to pack the court. When the Supreme Court blocked a lot of New Deal and state-level regulations as unconstitutional, FDR threatened to appoint enough new justices to get the decisions he wanted (there is no limit to the number of justices in the Constitution). That was the end of the Lochner era of American jurisprudence and was a tragedy for freedom. We're still suffering the consequences today.

rayiner 11y ago

The legal system has not narrowly interpreted the Bill of Rights. For example, the First Amendment has been construed to preclude lots of restrictions on conduct that is not literally "speech." Everything from contraception to abortion to gay marriage has become a "right" even though nobody can point to the specific amendment that guarantees it. In the case of civil asset forfeiture, central to the Supreme Court's upholding of those laws was the fact that laws providing for civil forfeiture of contraband property were passed by the First Congress.

Zigurd 11y ago
The US constitution itself explains what is apparently mysterious to some people. Rights are not enumerated. Indeed, as long as they do not impinge on the rights of others they are limitless. Otherwise our rights would be mired in the context of 18th c. morals and technology, and would require constant amendments to keep up. We have a right to use encryption. Cryptocurrency. CRISPR. Etc. We have those rights. Why? Because nothing in the constitution says we don't. Otherwise the constitution would be unmaintainable.
- rayiner 11y ago
  A statement that a list of rights is non-exhaustive does not mean they are limitless. The purported right must be found somewhere else. E.g. Buying alcohol on Sundays is not prohibited in the Constitution, but you don't have a right to that because blue laws were accepted at the time. Your idea of limitless rights turns Constitutional democracy on its head. Rights are exceptions to the power of the majority to regulate society. Limitless rights curtails democracy to nothing.
  - Zigurd 11y ago
    Your example about blue laws says nothing about rights. Blue laws regulate commerce but they don't prohibit anything outright. You can still drink on Sunday. If that restriction were to become too burdensome, a constitutional care could be made against it.
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
flubert 11y ago
> Everything from contraception to abortion to gay marriage has become a "right" even though nobody can point to the specific amendment that guarantees it. 9 & 10? http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/bill_of_rights_transcript.html http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/bill_of_rights_tra...

jwatte 11y ago

The role of the legal system (and government) is to keep those worth the most, safe. As a consequence, it may sometimes also protect regular people because that makes the society that feeds and supports them safer. But make no mistake, 1 there is no real power other than the power of force, and 2 he who has the gold, makes the rules.

ahallock 11y ago

How can you sue property? That doesn't even make sense. It's like corporations are people. These are just "creative" ways to circumvent the constitution and rule of law.