3 ms·
Then shouldn't the law that transfers ownership be "seizing property without due process" and therefore unconstitutional?
by phantom784 11y ago
Then shouldn't the law that transfers ownership be "seizing property without due process" and therefore unconstitutional?
- ikeboy 11y agoThe law says (assuming I'm understanding properly) if a crime was committed with property, then that property automatically belongs to the government. The government says "this property belongs to us. You have no rights in it, because a crime was committed with it. Therefore, you have no constitutional protections. Prove that it's yours, and to do so, you must prove that no crime was committed."
- chc 11y agoThe comment you're replying to is asking how that is not siezing property without due process. Repeating what they're doing doesn't answer the question of where due process occurs before the person is deprived of their property.
- ikeboy 11y agoThe person is not deprived of "their" property. They may be deprived of property that they have no way to show is, in fact, theirs.
- jwatte 11y agoThen the question is, what is property rights? What safety in my property and protection against seizure thereof do I have from the constitution?
- ikeboy 11y agoAny property not accused of a crime is protected, plus some other categories. I posted a law review article above that went into detail.
- chc 11y agoThe comment you're replying to is asking how that is not siezing property without due process. Reiterating that the government treats the property as its own doesn't answer the question of where due process occurs before the person is deprived of their property.