9 ms·

U.S. Bill of rights, article 7: "No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand

• aqme28 12y ago
  Don't forget the fourth: 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. I don't get how this is still considered constitutional.
  • Gustomaximus 12y ago
    I agree with you, but people readily throw out common sense for exact definition over the wider sense of a clause. In this case I'm sure the word 'unreasonable' can be twisted to where-ever people gaining advantage through want should they continue to face limited resistance.
  • deleted 12y ago
    [deleted]
  • baddox 12y ago
    There's very little incentive for the people who get to decide how the Consititution is interpreted to adopt interpretations that favor individual rights (or even broader social benefit) over state power.
    • javert 12y ago
      The people who ultimately get to decide that are the Supreme Court justices. They aren't incentivized to act in any particular way, except in accordance with their own philosophical values. That's why they are appointed for life.
      • baddox 12y ago
        They are chosen and vetted by people with such incentives.
        • smt88 12y ago
          They're chosen with the hope that their beliefs aren't going to change. That doesn't happen. Justices will tend to become more liberal over time [1]. 1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ideological_leanings_of_U.S._Supreme_Court_justices http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ideological_leanings_of_U.S._Su...
  • deleted 12y ago
    [deleted]
  • kirsebaer 12y ago
    Drug War hysteria. We are finally waking up from this nightmare.
    • a3n 12y ago
      Drug war hysteria may have given us this wave of robbery, but it's sustained by law enforcement's realization that they can, and (IMO) by political unwillingness to raise money for operations through legitimate taxation. "Read my lips, we're taking your car." Q: Why does a cop take your car? A: Because he can.
• Mikeb85 12y ago
  So who's going to prosecute them for it? If the government, police and judiciary are all in on it, who can stop them? There's only 2 political parties in the US and they're both in on this, you can't even vote for a party to reform this...
  • pstuart 12y ago
    The foundation for this is the War on Drugs, which many well-meaning citizens support. Only if those attitudes can be changed can we expect any change.
  • Sorgam 12y ago
    No. In America, you can do a "write in" vote whereby you can vote for anyone you want. So the problem is with the voters. If you voted for Obama, then you're partly responsible for this. The problem is people who will only vote for parties that are expensively advertised.
    • jonpaul 12y ago
      I agree with this. My strategy as of lately has been to just write "Libertarian" in the write-in box. I realize that it will have little impact as of now. But if enough people do it, news media will start reporting this. Potential liberty minded candidates may then see an opportunity. The liberty movement is growing as demonstrated by the success of Ron Paul's campaign in 2008 vs 2012. It just takes time.
      • baddox 12y ago
        As far as I know, most jurisdictions require write-in candidates to officially register as such, and will count yours as an invalid ballot. Literally no one will see your "message" except for the one person counting write-in ballots.
      • tlrobinson 12y ago
        "Potential liberty minded candidates may then see an opportunity." Legally change their name to "Libertarian"?
• damian2000 12y ago
  Is there something like a 'civil forfeiture' law which actually allow them to do this? Here in Australia we have something called 'Anti-hoon laws' which states after three major traffic infringements, your car can be seized (and destroyed/crushed in some cases). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hoon#Anti-hoon_legislation_in_Australia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hoon#Anti-hoon_legislation_in_A...
  • joering2 12y ago
    That's insane! God Bless 4th of July and founding fathers!
    • bbcbasic 12y ago
      </Irony>
• rtpg 12y ago
  De jure, isn't it possible to recover your effects if you're not actually convicted? The process might be too complicated, but it might be possible enough to not infringe on this. I guess the question is whether civil forfeiture meets the due process requirements. In many civil rights cases, we get into the difficulty of processes (something might be de jure possible but de facto impossible/extremely hard to go through). The main issue with trying to go after civil forfeiture in court is that the gov't could simply give you back your goods if you threaten to bring it to court, and you suddenly lose standing
  • joering2 12y ago
    Knowing how long it takes to sue the government... what do you want to do with 2008 Mercedes that is 17 years old??
    • rtpg 12y ago
      The question would be more about challenging the core of the law, not about getting your car back.
      • markbao 12y ago
        For those that have the money to pursue a lawsuit for the principle of it. Most don't take the time or have the money, or the cost–benefit makes the lawsuit more expensive than the asset itself.
      • deciplex 12y ago
        You'd have to have the resources to challenge this on principle, which might be hard to come by if a lot of your money and possessions were recently seized. Furthermore, for asset forfeiture, police departments tend to prey on the weak in the first place, so they are less likely to challenge it - or will give up the challenge once they receive back a pittance from these thugs.
      • adventured 12y ago
        That's part of the reason the cops don't mess with rich people. There are consequences to doing so. They know the line on who they can or can't screw-over without stirring up trouble. You'd need some very rich and or powerful people to be interested in this problem. Soros has taken a specific interest in the prison system in the US, when it comes to drug laws and punishment extent; maybe someone like that will pick this cause up.
• jared314 12y ago
  > I am not a lawyer, but I do have to wonder, how is 'civil forfeiture' as a whole compatible with the U.S. constitution IANAL: Last I heard, the logic was that you, the owner, are not accused of anything. Your property is accused of being used in a criminal act. Your property is guilty until proven innocent, because it is not a person protected by the bill of rights. The idea was to seize the assets of organized crime without having to completely prove they were committing a crime (which is hard). The road to hell is paved with good intentions. (Also, if your plan is to use the bill of rights against a prosecutor, you need a better plan.)
  • lingben 12y ago
    So does this mean that I can sue the Federal Reserve and 'hold' their assets indefinitely until they prove they are not guilty? do I get to keep the interest generated while the case slowly goes through due process?
    • deciplex 12y ago
      If you have an army, yes.
      • ende 12y ago
        Maybe we need to become an army.
  • smsm42 12y ago
    That demonstrates again why people should reject the argument of "if we don't do this, law enforcement would be hard" or "we'd do it only to the bad guys, don't worry". Because as soon as it's allowed to do this to the bad guys, it is amazing who becomes the bad guy when needed.
  • rhino369 12y ago
    It's not guilty til proven innocence, but a lower standard called a preponderance of evidence. The hearing you get is the due process.
  • 12y ago
• jeffdavis 12y ago
  The same way that growing a plant on your own property for your own consumption became "commerce among the states".
  • kenesom1 12y ago
    Indeed - prohibiting individual use because it might morph into interstate commerce is an illegal type of "pre-crime restraint" [1]. In which case everyone's rights are violated on the mere possibility that a victimless act the government objects to might be committed. [1] http://cornelllawreview.org/articles/pre-crime-restraints-the-explosion-of-targeted-noncustodial-prevention/ http://cornelllawreview.org/articles/pre-crime-restraints-th...
  • baddox 12y ago
    Which for reference was http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gonzales_v._Raich http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gonzales_v._Raich. Another fun one is when they ruled that growing wheat to feed your own chickens (all in one state) is interstate commerce: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wickard_v._Filburn http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wickard_v._Filburn
    • jevinskie 12y ago
      And much of that precedent is from the New Deal era. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commerce_Clause#New_Deal http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commerce_Clause#New_Deal Edit: In the case you posted, I think this excerpt from Justice Thomas' dissent sums it up nicely: If the Federal Government can regulate growing a half-dozen cannabis plants for personal consumption (not because it is interstate commerce, but because it is inextricably bound up with interstate commerce), then Congress' Article I powers – as expanded by the Necessary and Proper Clause – have no meaningful limits. Whether Congress aims at the possession of drugs, guns, or any number of other items, it may continue to "appropria[te] state police powers under the guise of regulating commerce."
• bradleyjg 12y ago
  There's a series of cases going way back. The first one had to do with the seizure of a vessel used by a Spanish Privateer (The Palmyra, 25 U.S. 12 Wheat. 1 1 (1827)). Although not particularity well reasoned -- it doesn't even analyze the constitutional issues -- it was unfortunately written by a very revered justice famous for the first treatise on American Constitutional law. The concept was largely limited to the maritime and smuggling context for a fair amount of time, but was eventually extended beyond that in cases involving moonshine. By the time the 20th century rolled around, there was this long line of cases. Justices, whether politically conservative or liberal, tend to be dispositionally conservative. Every time it's come up it's been reaffirmed largely on the basis of pure precedent, without any analysis from first principles. Here's one of the most liberal justices in history (Brennan) discussing civil forfeiture: At common law the value of an inanimate object directly or indirectly causing the accidental death of a [416 U.S. 663, 681] King's subject was forfeited to the Crown as a deodand.16 The origins of the deodand are traceable to Biblical17 and pre-Judeo-Christian practices, which reflected the view that the instrument of death was accused and that religious expiation was required. See O. Holmes, The Common Law, c. 1 (1881). The value of the instrument was forfeited to the King, in the belief that the King would provide the money for Masses to be said for the good of the dead man's soul, or insure that the deodand was put to charitable uses. 1 W. Blackstone, Commentaries.18 When application of the deodand to religious or eleemosynary purposes ceased, and the deodand became a source of Crown revenue, the institution was justified as a penalty for carelessness. ... Decisions reaching the same conclusion have continued into this century. In Goldsmith-Grant Co. v. United States, 254 U.S. 505 (1921), it was held that the federal tax-fraud forfeiture statute did not deprive an innocent owner of his property in violation of the Fifth Amendment. There, the claimant was a conditional vendor of a taxicab that had been used in the removal and concealment of distilled spirits upon which the federal tax was unpaid. Although recognizing that arguments against the application of the statute to cover an innocent owner were not without force, the Court rejected them, saying: "In breaches of revenue provisions some forms of property are facilities, and therefore it may be said, that Congress interposes the care and responsibility [416 U.S. 663, 686] of their owners in aid of the prohibitions of the law and its punitive provisions, by ascribing to the property a certain personality, a power of complicity and guilt in the wrong. In such case there is some analogy to the law of deodand by which a personal chattel that was the immediate cause of the death of any reasonable creature was forfeited. To the superstitious reason to which the rule was ascribed, Blackstone adds `that such misfortunes are in part owing to the negligence of the owner, and therefore he is properly punished by such forfeiture.' . . . "But whether the reason for [the forfeiture] be artificial or real, it is too firmly fixed in the punitive and remedial jurisprudence of the country to be now displaced." Id., at 510-511. Calero-Toledo v. Pearson Yacht Leasing Co. 416 U.S. 663 (1974) One could be forgiven for thinking that he's reading a Scalia opinion instead of a Brennan opinion!
• adventured 12y ago
  It's incompatible, entirely, with the Constitution. The keyword these days is extra-legal. That's half of what the government does now, and it does not care that you know it, because there is nobody powerful enough to stop such a menacing monster. The collar is off.
• wl 12y ago
  It's a common mistake to believe that due process has to be fair and just. In a civil asset forfeiture case, the owner of the property has the right to take part in the proceedings and contest the seizure. The owner is informed of this. And the owner can appeal the outcome of the proceedings. All this together constitutes due process, even if challenging the seizure costs more than the property in question is worth.