> courts have affirmed over and over again

I don't have emotions on this matter and I don't care what you think and I haven't stated my actual opinion. The authority on this matter are the courts.

The courts have evaluated civil forfeiture under

4th amendment arguments

5th amendment arguments

6th amendment arguments

8th amendment arguments

14th amendment arguments

and only found the 8th amendment argument against excessive fines to hold some weight, but not to undo civil asset forfeiture but only clarifying that the 8th amendment actually applies to the states.

if you want the executive branches to act differently and the courts to rule differently then you have to change what the legislature allows them to do.

like I wrote, just because something is constitutional doesn't mean we have to do it.

I think the people arguing with you are simply stating that the judges who ruled that it is constitutional are _wrong_. It's a stance I agree with.

if only there was a completely different branch of government we could get to limit how the courts could rule, if someone figures it out they should do it and make an article about it

i might even write a comment about how thats the most effective way to change the reality, I wonder if people will read that part though, what do you think?

Turns out there seems to be some leeway for the actors within the justice system as it exists now ;

https://www.ted.com/talks/adam_foss_a_prosecutor_s_vision_fo...

If people with the power to, start making more use of these discretionary powers, it can make a big difference without having to overturn the seemingly extensive jurisprudence.

Some legal hacking.

As an anecdotal experience, I have been convicted of a felony and allowed to keep the cash in my possession by the judge, which was not SOP. I guess I had made an impression. No snitching involved.

The Supreme Court occasionally overturns precedent.

Technically in the US the constitution means what the Supreme Court thinks it means.

Hmm, no. The supreme court is not the only arbiter of that.

The president and congress are just as sworn to upheld it, and with respect to several portions of it (e.g. impeachment) are the only arbiters of what it means. With the rare exception of cases where the Supreme Court has original jurisdiction [1] - congress is even allowed to replace the Supreme Court with a new final court of appeals. The Supreme Court has surprisingly little constitutional power if Congress decides to sideline them.

[1] > In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction

[2] (Emphasis added) > In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.

You must make the difference between the institution and the members. Just because Congress can change the makeup of the Court, doesn't mean that the institution has. It's a Catch 22 - in the end the final interpreter will always have absolute liberty over meaning.

And again, in theory Congress can make exceptions to it, but in the end its still up to the Supreme Court to decide that they make sense. A piece of paper has no meaning in and of itself.

Not true. The constitution doesn't actually grant the Supreme Court judicial review, that was the result of Marbury v. Madison.

Marbury vs Madison is a result of an interpretation of the constitution, and the constitution de facto grants that power to the highest court of appeal which happens to be the Supreme Court. As a result, the highest court of appeal essentially is the constitution.

If you did disagree with the courts, you should have qualified your statement that “[the courts have ruled] property is not afforded the rights of humans and cases can be levied against property directly”

Otherwise this comment (and the one you copy-pasted) looks like knee jerk damage control.

I didn't state my opinion at all. Why do you think there is no latitude to just write accuracy statements? That shouldn't be a foreign concept. I don't feel the need to write disclaimers.

It's fairly irresponsible to argue legal theory without a disclaimer. IANAL is an acronym for a reason.

Of course, by this point, other people have seen through your rhetoric and have adjusted your comments score accordingly.