5 ms·

There is no world where this practice could pass constitutional review. What they are doing is called out as unconstitutional in no less than three (!!!) diffe

by dmayle 10y ago

There is no world where this practice could pass constitutional review. What they are doing is called out as unconstitutional in no less than three (!!!) different amendments. At this point in time, the supreme court should be buckling under the weight of requests to review this practice, and have it struck down as un-American. "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized" - Fourth Amendment "No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation." -- Fifth Amendment "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects,[a] against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized" - Fourteenth Ammendment

rosser 10y ago
> There is no world where this practice could pass constitutional review. And yet, civil asset forfeiture has been sanctioned by SCotUS. If we're ever going to change this kind of crap, indignation and, "But, but, but ... nuh-uh!" are not the places to start.
- throwaway_reply 10y ago
  (Original poster, but my procrastination settings prevented me from responding) Generally, SCotUS approval of civil forfeiture falls into two categories: 1) Assets involved in a crime you didn't commit (e.g. lending your car to someone who robs a bank and uses it as a getaway car). 2) Assets involved in a crime where there is no access to, or evidence of the owner (e.g. a pile of money found with a pile of drugs, or the home of a criminal who has fled the country) The form of seizure mentioned in this article is quite clearly unconstitutional.
- 20yrs_no_equity 10y ago
  The language of the constitution is pretty clear. So what this says to me is that the Supreme Court is not enforcing the constitution. While these thefts are disturbing, this lack of accountability from the Supreme Court will ultimately lead to much worse crimes.
  - DannyBee 10y ago
    The problem for you is that the supreme court has the final say on what the constitution means. So for you to say "Supreme Court is not enforcing the constitution" doesn't make a lot of sense. They get to say what it means, so they are "enforcing" the constitution almost by definition. (this is probably not a great word to use since they rely on other branches, like the executive, to enforce things. They can order stuff to happen, but they have no way to actually make it happen themselves). You may mean "I don't like the interpretation they've given or i think it's wrong". That's okay too, what you do in that case is very simple: Congress passes a law to overrule the supreme court, or the country pass an amendment to do it. This has happened numerous times before. They are in fact, 100% accountable in this regard. They take responsibility for their decisions, and pretty much everything from their ability to hear certain cases to almost every ruling can be overruled by either new laws or amendments. They happily let that happen, and that is the form of review and accountability you get in our system of government :)
    - sathackr 10y ago
      > Congress passes a law to overrule the supreme court, or the country pass an amendment to do it. This has happened numerous times before. But then the Supreme Court gets to interpret that law also. I don't see how you could possibly more clearly state what the previously quoted amendments already state. Since it already failed(or succeeded, depending on which side you're on) in it's interpretation of the 4th/5th/14th amendments, I have zero confidence it would properly interpret any other amendment or law addressing the issue.
gumby 10y ago
I like to think so too but the US Supreme Court has sanctioned civil forfeiture on more than one occasion and their decision is, by definition, constitutionally consistent. (Which is not to say that a future court couldn't reverse it, but I don't recommend you hold your breath waiting for that). However congress could pass laws forbidding it. That is also constitutionally valid.

by dmayle 10y ago

rosser 10y ago

> There is no world where this practice could pass constitutional review. And yet, civil asset forfeiture has been sanctioned by SCotUS. If we're ever going to change this kind of crap, indignation and, "But, but, but ... nuh-uh!" are not the places to start.

throwaway_reply 10y ago
(Original poster, but my procrastination settings prevented me from responding) Generally, SCotUS approval of civil forfeiture falls into two categories: 1) Assets involved in a crime you didn't commit (e.g. lending your car to someone who robs a bank and uses it as a getaway car). 2) Assets involved in a crime where there is no access to, or evidence of the owner (e.g. a pile of money found with a pile of drugs, or the home of a criminal who has fled the country) The form of seizure mentioned in this article is quite clearly unconstitutional.
20yrs_no_equity 10y ago
The language of the constitution is pretty clear. So what this says to me is that the Supreme Court is not enforcing the constitution. While these thefts are disturbing, this lack of accountability from the Supreme Court will ultimately lead to much worse crimes.
- DannyBee 10y ago
  The problem for you is that the supreme court has the final say on what the constitution means. So for you to say "Supreme Court is not enforcing the constitution" doesn't make a lot of sense. They get to say what it means, so they are "enforcing" the constitution almost by definition. (this is probably not a great word to use since they rely on other branches, like the executive, to enforce things. They can order stuff to happen, but they have no way to actually make it happen themselves). You may mean "I don't like the interpretation they've given or i think it's wrong". That's okay too, what you do in that case is very simple: Congress passes a law to overrule the supreme court, or the country pass an amendment to do it. This has happened numerous times before. They are in fact, 100% accountable in this regard. They take responsibility for their decisions, and pretty much everything from their ability to hear certain cases to almost every ruling can be overruled by either new laws or amendments. They happily let that happen, and that is the form of review and accountability you get in our system of government :)
  - sathackr 10y ago
    > Congress passes a law to overrule the supreme court, or the country pass an amendment to do it. This has happened numerous times before. But then the Supreme Court gets to interpret that law also. I don't see how you could possibly more clearly state what the previously quoted amendments already state. Since it already failed(or succeeded, depending on which side you're on) in it's interpretation of the 4th/5th/14th amendments, I have zero confidence it would properly interpret any other amendment or law addressing the issue.

gumby 10y ago

I like to think so too but the US Supreme Court has sanctioned civil forfeiture on more than one occasion and their decision is, by definition, constitutionally consistent. (Which is not to say that a future court couldn't reverse it, but I don't recommend you hold your breath waiting for that). However congress could pass laws forbidding it. That is also constitutionally valid.