3 ms·
I'm of the opinion that neither legislation or a new constitutional amendment would help, at this point. When the majority on the SC endorses this sort of takin
by spacemanmatt 12y ago
I'm of the opinion that neither legislation or a new constitutional amendment would help, at this point. When the majority on the SC endorses this sort of taking, they are the problem.
- gizmo686 12y agoSCOTUS never endorsed this sort of taking, they said that it is not unconstitutional and (in this case) the defendants to not have the constitutional right to challenge it. A constitutional amendment could trivially solve this (once you get it passed, which is highly nontrivial), while new legislation can solve it by either making such forfeitures (or asset freezes) illegal, or giving the defendants a legal (not constitutional) right to challenge it.
- spacemanmatt 12y agoThey failed to consider the rights of the accused to use their assets to choose their attorney (or pay one at all) as more important than the need of the state to preemptively foreclose the alleged artifacts of a crime. You can call it what you want, but I'm not sure we disagree, overall.
- rasz_pl 12y agothey didnt say its unconstitutional to rob you, they said police doesnt violate your rights because they charge MONEY THEY STEAL with crimes ....
- ahomescu1 12y agoThe example in the article seems like it violates both the 4th (being "unreasonable seizure") and the 5th (people being deprived of their property without due process). The government just confiscated everything from those people, expecting a conviction that would validate the confiscation.
- zyxley 12y agoAgreed. To me the explanations as to how this kind of forfeiture work just feel like absurd doublespeak to try and claim that the Fourth and Fifth somehow don't apply.