3 ms·
The problem is in defining unreasonable. If it just said it prohibited seizure, or prohibited asset seizure past 30 days or something to that effect, it would
by Loughla 2y ago
The problem is in defining unreasonable.
If it just said it prohibited seizure, or prohibited asset seizure past 30 days or something to that effect, it would be much easier.
But because it doesn't, we have to interpret the language. This is a difficult proposition; it's literally open for interpretation.
Like most things in the constitution, it's messy, but still pretty good.
- iambateman 2y agoCertainly! It’s just strange to me that we haven’t completely nailed this one down already in the courts. It’s not like AI or guns where the tech is totally different. “Don’t take my stuff forever” hasn’t changed much. :)