4 ms·
The 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 p
by ahomescu1 12y ago
The 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.