4 ms·
> 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?
by 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 agoI 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 agoThat'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 agoThen the constitution is truly alive! Or perhaps undead... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Living_Constitution https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Living_Constitution