For this reason, the argument of "no, the courts said otherwise" with regards to jurisprudence can be particularly frustrating.
the more people bring these half baked cases in front of stupid judges, the more they keep crystallizing the reality.
> the more people bring these half baked cases in front of stupid judges, the more they keep crystallizing the reality.
Honestly, common law kind of sucks.
This was an outgrowth of the 80's and the war on drugs. It ruffled the feathers of average Americans that drug dealers got to keep their fancy cars and boats. Hence this was a legal way for the state to take those ill gotten gains. Over time its use has grown. Since the initial 'victims' were so unsympathetic, case law was established that everything was legal.
This is accurate insofar as it represents the current jurisprudence, but absolutely false in the moral or straightforward reading of the constitution.
The 'takings' clause of the 5th amendment, for example:
"nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation"
That seems to clearly establish that humans have a right to their private property not being taken from them. Whether the legal fiction is a case against my car, or "a Toyota Corolla" doesn't have any practical difference on the outcome. The government can seize my car without due process,
Civil asset forfeiture is flat-out unconstitutional. The fact that is exists without due process or just compensation is wrong, and the current jurisprudence on it is simply wrong. It's rare for me to be willing to step out on a limb and say the courts are simply wrong on an issue, but civil asset forfeiture is a limb I will happily step out onto.