Right Idea – Worng Reason

Comments

RSS feed for comments on this post.

  1. I concur.
    Not even remotely constitutional.

    Comment by DougM (flawed chap) — July 20, 2017 @ 11:12 am

  2. IIRC, it was going on even before the Buraq Extra-constitutional Regime. It’s been nibbled around the edges before SCOTUS, but how it managed to survive so long without the fundamental issue going to SCOTUS is beyond me.
    Even if the defendant were Pablo Escobar, the Feral Gummint or any other entity has no right to a person’s property without first concluding a contract or finishing due process to a guilty verdict.
    The anti gun wussies argue the second Amendment is about militias, but at least that word is in the Constitution.

    “No person shall be … deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.”

    The Ferals must be arguing an that an arrest with evidence of the crime in hand, or even just the evidence in hand is sufficient to grab anything related they can find. This sounds like another inch cut off the Constitution’s tail for expediency [the worthless, over-priced "War On Drugs].

    Seems to me, seizure of private assets is expressly forbidden, especially with the use of the imperative word “shall”. Following government logic, the Feral Gum should be able to execute the defendant as well, to prevent his escape from custody pending a grand jury hearing or trial.

    Let’s make it Leviathan instead of Feral Government.

    Comment by dick, not quite dead white guy — July 20, 2017 @ 1:26 pm

  3. I’ve said for a couple of decades that if civil asset forfeiture were applied in concert with deportation that illegals would break land speed records leaving the U.S.
    Think of it. You come to America and work without authorization, get caught and on top of being deported lose all of the fruits of your illegal labor.
    Like a gun, civil asset forfeiture is a tool. As such it is not inherently bad. The degree of evil it can cause is entirely dependent on how it is used.

    Comment by Brad — July 20, 2017 @ 2:42 pm

  4. Dick, SCOTUS has been in favor of civil forfeiture for 180 years; their last ruling in its favor was in 1996.

    http://www.businessinsider.com/supreme-court-ruling-on-civil-forfeiture-2014-11

    That doesn’t make it right. It is wrong. Outside of jackboots at 3am and people disappearing for political reasons, it is the most un-American thing that the authorities can do. Screw the Supremes, they are toadies to the government power block. And Mike Pence is a dickbreath DB for favoring it. “Oh, look how much it helps the police departments”. What a crock. They have tons of money already, are up-armored, drive MRAPS, have automatic weapons, get nice budgets to begin with and then supplement it 100% through the scam called traffic court.

    Civil forfeiture is out and out corruption, a racketeering act by the biggest gang in the country.

    Notice that not one Dem is against it. And maybe the only Rep speaking out would be Rand Paul. Maybe. They all profit by it, and you the citizen are truly screwed.

    Comment by Drew458 — July 20, 2017 @ 3:07 pm

  5. ^Yep. Civil forfeiture is big in the Midwest, despite the fact that it is obviously unconstitutional.

    Comment by Max Redline — July 20, 2017 @ 3:55 pm

  6. I see this play out fairly regular on I40, travelers with all their stuff piled beside the road while Barny paws through all of it. Funny I never see them when its raining.

    Comment by blindshooter — July 20, 2017 @ 4:03 pm

  7. I thought they needed ‘probable cause’ to search: what constitutes ‘probable cause’ these days?

    speeding?

    being… what?

    Comment by Claire: rebellious pink pig with car keys - and a *cause* — July 20, 2017 @ 4:50 pm

  8. Next time somebody tells me Democrats and Republicans are all the same I won’t have an argument.

    Comment by Dave — July 20, 2017 @ 8:34 pm

  9. I know an AG that needs to get his ass fired…

    Comment by rickn8or — July 20, 2017 @ 10:00 pm

  10. Yes, I know a Hillary presidency would be far, far worse, but I’m extremely disappointed with the Trump administration.

    Having to fight all the Vichy Republicans in the Senate is one thing, but Trump should’ve swept out all Obama’s appointees the first day in office. Why he still won’t clean house just amazes me. He would have far fewer leaks if he’s done this and he’d have a much better chance of presenting a more coherent agenda. Instead, we have this on-going clown show. Today, he’s reshuffling his communications office, and Spicer quit in disgust.

    And this media + Democrat fixation on “Russia Russia Russia” is really pissing me off. It’s flat-out sedition at this point.

    Comment by Fat Baxter — July 21, 2017 @ 10:14 am

  11. Oh, dearie dear…

    Comment by DougM (flawed chap) — July 21, 2017 @ 10:32 am

  12. I’ve always wondered how even lawyers and judges could find that Constitutional.

    Here’s a White House petition to get rid of it.

    I wish there was a comment section.
    Or maybe not, I’m probably on enough lists already.

    Comment by Veeshir — July 21, 2017 @ 4:52 pm

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

Close this window.

0.681 Powered by WordPress