5 ms·

So, not a specialist in US laws, and the last time I tried myself at it, it made me a laughing stock. But... If civil forfeiture is as such against the law al

So, not a specialist in US laws, and the last time I tried myself at it, it made me a laughing stock. But... If civil forfeiture is as such against the law already in current form, would that just mean that courts who kept okaying it will just keep ignoring the law?

chomp 6y ago
There's "Against The Law", and there's "against the law". the latter usually has to be proven in court using a pile of case history and existing laws, which is difficult when the assets seized are from the lower rungs of society, who have no means to retain an attorney, who definitely don't see the benefit of continuing the case once the state settles and they get their stuff back, and who have the cards stacked against them (not sure if it's the same now, but states used to charge you state legal fees if you lost your case.) Explicit is always better than implicit.
- baybal2 6y ago
  US constitution is 100% explicit, it's forbidden 100% forbidden. Conformance to this is completely dependent on nothing more than judges' ability to read. If they read the US constitution, it says: > "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." Cause not probable — Check Not supported by Oath — Check No specific description — Check
  - s1artibartfast 6y ago
    Why don’t you think it has probable cause, oath, or description? This is a very low bar and has nothing to do with courts or judges.
    - baybal2 6y ago
      Because the cases people talk about are about the police confiscating the first thing they stumble upon, and deciding on the spot to confiscate it with no cause other than "they feel like doing it"
  - andrewjl 6y ago
    It'd be helpful to read up on constitutional law before drawing these conclusions because there is a long and complicated history around interpreting every phrase and most words in the part that you cite. Probable cause is a great place to start IMO.
disgrunt 6y ago
> If civil forfeiture is as such against the law already in current form, would that just mean that courts who kept okaying it will just keep ignoring the law? No. The courts interpret the law and civil forfeiture is currently in a grey area when it comes to the law. It can be argued to be unconstitutional, in that it appears to violate the fourth amendment of the U.S. Constitution, but there are a lot of laws on the books in the U.S. that on their face appear to be unconstitutional and it is up to the courts to interpret them and rule on their constitutionality. But if the legislature creates a law to make civil forfeiture illegal then that gives the courts less wiggle room to interpret the law.
- martincmartin 6y ago
  I thought the supreme court was given a chance to strike it down and didn't. So the supreme court has affirmed it is constitutional, IIRC.
  - vmception 6y ago
    That's correct, it is constitutional. Colloquially, people call things "unconstitutional" when it doesn't match the social contract they were told when younger. It's more of a meme than a reference to what matches the constitution. Children in the US are told lies to differentiate the US from other political systems worldwide. Those that can read are able to adopt a more effective set of rules in the US.
- baybal2 6y ago
  > there are a lot of laws on the books in the U.S. that on their face appear to be unconstitutional and it is up to the courts to interpret them and rule on their constitutionality. But what if the law is clearly 1000% prima facie against the word of constitution, but judges still keep deciding to okay it fully knowing of its unconstitutionality?
  - nickff 6y ago
    Then the constitution is truly alive! Or perhaps undead... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Living_Constitution https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Living_Constitution

chomp 6y ago

There's "Against The Law", and there's "against the law". the latter usually has to be proven in court using a pile of case history and existing laws, which is difficult when the assets seized are from the lower rungs of society, who have no means to retain an attorney, who definitely don't see the benefit of continuing the case once the state settles and they get their stuff back, and who have the cards stacked against them (not sure if it's the same now, but states used to charge you state legal fees if you lost your case.) Explicit is always better than implicit.

baybal2 6y ago
US constitution is 100% explicit, it's forbidden 100% forbidden. Conformance to this is completely dependent on nothing more than judges' ability to read. If they read the US constitution, it says: > "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." Cause not probable — Check Not supported by Oath — Check No specific description — Check
- s1artibartfast 6y ago
  Why don’t you think it has probable cause, oath, or description? This is a very low bar and has nothing to do with courts or judges.
  - baybal2 6y ago
    Because the cases people talk about are about the police confiscating the first thing they stumble upon, and deciding on the spot to confiscate it with no cause other than "they feel like doing it"
- andrewjl 6y ago
  It'd be helpful to read up on constitutional law before drawing these conclusions because there is a long and complicated history around interpreting every phrase and most words in the part that you cite. Probable cause is a great place to start IMO.

disgrunt 6y ago

> If civil forfeiture is as such against the law already in current form, would that just mean that courts who kept okaying it will just keep ignoring the law? No. The courts interpret the law and civil forfeiture is currently in a grey area when it comes to the law. It can be argued to be unconstitutional, in that it appears to violate the fourth amendment of the U.S. Constitution, but there are a lot of laws on the books in the U.S. that on their face appear to be unconstitutional and it is up to the courts to interpret them and rule on their constitutionality. But if the legislature creates a law to make civil forfeiture illegal then that gives the courts less wiggle room to interpret the law.

martincmartin 6y ago
I thought the supreme court was given a chance to strike it down and didn't. So the supreme court has affirmed it is constitutional, IIRC.
- vmception 6y ago
  That's correct, it is constitutional. Colloquially, people call things "unconstitutional" when it doesn't match the social contract they were told when younger. It's more of a meme than a reference to what matches the constitution. Children in the US are told lies to differentiate the US from other political systems worldwide. Those that can read are able to adopt a more effective set of rules in the US.
baybal2 6y ago
> there are a lot of laws on the books in the U.S. that on their face appear to be unconstitutional and it is up to the courts to interpret them and rule on their constitutionality. But what if the law is clearly 1000% prima facie against the word of constitution, but judges still keep deciding to okay it fully knowing of its unconstitutionality?
- nickff 6y ago
  Then the constitution is truly alive! Or perhaps undead... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Living_Constitution https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Living_Constitution