17 ms·

The constitution is contradictory. It isn't a perfect document written on a stone tablet by god. And legal systems of any nation are more than just the constit

The constitution is contradictory. It isn't a perfect document written on a stone tablet by god. And legal systems of any nation are more than just the constitution. So the idea that you can just read one clause in the constitution and therefore clearly know what is allowed and isn't (also, even the interpretation of that clause is not as easy as you are portraying here) is absolutely false.

willcipriano 4y ago
> And legal systems of any nation are more than just the constitution. In any case when a legal system clashes with the wording of the constitution it is that legal system that is wrong. That's what "highest law in the land" means. That is the entire purpose of having a constitution. Experts love to hide behind "it's complicated!" but in this case they have nowhere to hide.
- eightysixfour 4y ago
  What part of the constitution do you think it clashes with?
  - willcipriano 4y ago
    > 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. Pull over a guy, take the paper cash out of his wallet without charging him with a crime. No amount of wordplay can make that constitutional in a reasonable persons mind.
    - pc86 4y ago
      I do think CAF as it's currently implemented is unconstitutional, but this clause doesn't make CAF as an idea unconstitutional. The entire point (originally) was to secure assets that you have probable cause to believe are funding or proceeds from crime. So you find someone with a trash bag full of pills and $300k in cash in their trunk after a legal search, you need a process to handle that money.
      - willcipriano 4y ago
        That process has existed since before America has, find probable cause someone is committing a crime, detain the suspect (you can get a warrant first but this is more common), get a warrant (can be done over the phone in a couple of minutes), put the cash away somewhere safe until the trial is over. If they are guilty of that crime and that cash was involved, great! If not you have to return it. What we are talking about here is just taking the cash, sending you on your way and spending it, sidestepping your legal rights like access to a court provided attorney or a jury trial. It probably doesn't do much to prevent crime even, the fentanyl runners would much prefer you just take the cash they have on them and let them go.
      - s1artibartfast 4y ago
        Take it as evidence until the owner goes to trial. If there is no speedy trial, return it to the owner.
      - chrismcb 4y ago
        But the way it works today is the "probable cause"is the fact the money is over 10k. No charges end up being filled, or they end up being dropped. But they don't give you the assets back. Even after proving they are legitimate. You still have to fight for it. As an idea civil asset forfeiture is unconstitutional. Because it was designed to be an end around the constitution.
    - eightysixfour 4y ago
      Please define reasonable in legal terms.
pc86 4y ago
In what context can a law disagree with the Constitution and still be legitimate?
- rtkwe 4y ago
  When interpretations of the meaning of the Constitution differ the one last held by the Supreme Court has the (current) final say. The constitution is by necessity an interpretive document because we don't have a Constitutional Oracle to perfectly map concepts and words for centuries back onto the technological landscape of today. "Shall not be infringed" is a super common refrain among the 2A crowd but taken hyper literally you couldn't take guns away from criminals actively in prison. I think civil forfeiture is far outside the bounds of what could be condoned under the Bill of Rights but my interpretation only matters at a distance of influencing representatives to pass laws or the SC to rule differently.
- ceejayoz 4y ago
  Libel law disagrees with the Constitution by a literal reading. So does banning human sacrifice in religious services. We still treat them as legitimate.
  - kolanos 4y ago
    Libel is a civil matter. The government can't charge you with libel.
    - ceejayoz 4y ago
      The government provides a judge and courtroom, decides the result, and enforces the judgement. If you prefer a criminal matter, swap it out for fraud.
- chrismcb 4y ago
  Until it gets overturned. The problem is they don't let things go to trial to get it overturned
sebzim4500 4y ago
>The constitution is contradictory. Could you give an example of this?
- ceejayoz 4y ago
  The same document talks about the "Blessings of Liberty" while establishing slaves as 3/5 of a person for Congressional representation? It's a little hard to reconcile slavery with, say, the Fifth Amendment's prohibition on being "deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law".
  - willcipriano 4y ago
    > slaves as 3/5 of a person for Congressional representation You would've granted slave owners more votes? You feel they were under represented? If I lived in a state alone with a enough slaves I should have been able to dictate policy for the entire nation?
    - cto_of_antifa 4y ago
    - ceejayoz 4y ago
      > You would've granted slave owners more votes? I would have not had slaves.
      - throwaway0a5e 4y ago
        That's really rich coming from a proponent of federal authority/power. The alternative here was the articles of confederation or nothing and the states go their own ways as countries, not some fantasy in which the southern states torpedoed their own economies out of some love of the nation. The constitution and the included 3/5ths compromise most certainly brought about the end of slavery much faster than taking a hard line circa 1790, or anything else that tipped the scales away from the united states forming a national identity would have.

willcipriano 4y ago

> And legal systems of any nation are more than just the constitution. In any case when a legal system clashes with the wording of the constitution it is that legal system that is wrong. That's what "highest law in the land" means. That is the entire purpose of having a constitution. Experts love to hide behind "it's complicated!" but in this case they have nowhere to hide.

eightysixfour 4y ago
What part of the constitution do you think it clashes with?
- willcipriano 4y ago
  > 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. Pull over a guy, take the paper cash out of his wallet without charging him with a crime. No amount of wordplay can make that constitutional in a reasonable persons mind.
  - pc86 4y ago
    I do think CAF as it's currently implemented is unconstitutional, but this clause doesn't make CAF as an idea unconstitutional. The entire point (originally) was to secure assets that you have probable cause to believe are funding or proceeds from crime. So you find someone with a trash bag full of pills and $300k in cash in their trunk after a legal search, you need a process to handle that money.
    - willcipriano 4y ago
      That process has existed since before America has, find probable cause someone is committing a crime, detain the suspect (you can get a warrant first but this is more common), get a warrant (can be done over the phone in a couple of minutes), put the cash away somewhere safe until the trial is over. If they are guilty of that crime and that cash was involved, great! If not you have to return it. What we are talking about here is just taking the cash, sending you on your way and spending it, sidestepping your legal rights like access to a court provided attorney or a jury trial. It probably doesn't do much to prevent crime even, the fentanyl runners would much prefer you just take the cash they have on them and let them go.
    - s1artibartfast 4y ago
      Take it as evidence until the owner goes to trial. If there is no speedy trial, return it to the owner.
    - chrismcb 4y ago
      But the way it works today is the "probable cause"is the fact the money is over 10k. No charges end up being filled, or they end up being dropped. But they don't give you the assets back. Even after proving they are legitimate. You still have to fight for it. As an idea civil asset forfeiture is unconstitutional. Because it was designed to be an end around the constitution.
  - eightysixfour 4y ago
    Please define reasonable in legal terms.

pc86 4y ago

In what context can a law disagree with the Constitution and still be legitimate?

rtkwe 4y ago
When interpretations of the meaning of the Constitution differ the one last held by the Supreme Court has the (current) final say. The constitution is by necessity an interpretive document because we don't have a Constitutional Oracle to perfectly map concepts and words for centuries back onto the technological landscape of today. "Shall not be infringed" is a super common refrain among the 2A crowd but taken hyper literally you couldn't take guns away from criminals actively in prison. I think civil forfeiture is far outside the bounds of what could be condoned under the Bill of Rights but my interpretation only matters at a distance of influencing representatives to pass laws or the SC to rule differently.
ceejayoz 4y ago
Libel law disagrees with the Constitution by a literal reading. So does banning human sacrifice in religious services. We still treat them as legitimate.
- kolanos 4y ago
  Libel is a civil matter. The government can't charge you with libel.
  - ceejayoz 4y ago
    The government provides a judge and courtroom, decides the result, and enforces the judgement. If you prefer a criminal matter, swap it out for fraud.
chrismcb 4y ago
Until it gets overturned. The problem is they don't let things go to trial to get it overturned

sebzim4500 4y ago

>The constitution is contradictory. Could you give an example of this?

ceejayoz 4y ago
The same document talks about the "Blessings of Liberty" while establishing slaves as 3/5 of a person for Congressional representation? It's a little hard to reconcile slavery with, say, the Fifth Amendment's prohibition on being "deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law".
- willcipriano 4y ago
  > slaves as 3/5 of a person for Congressional representation You would've granted slave owners more votes? You feel they were under represented? If I lived in a state alone with a enough slaves I should have been able to dictate policy for the entire nation?
  - cto_of_antifa 4y ago
  - ceejayoz 4y ago
    > You would've granted slave owners more votes? I would have not had slaves.
    - throwaway0a5e 4y ago
      That's really rich coming from a proponent of federal authority/power. The alternative here was the articles of confederation or nothing and the states go their own ways as countries, not some fantasy in which the southern states torpedoed their own economies out of some love of the nation. The constitution and the included 3/5ths compromise most certainly brought about the end of slavery much faster than taking a hard line circa 1790, or anything else that tipped the scales away from the united states forming a national identity would have.