Re:Justin Amash Introduces Bill to End Civil Asset Forfeitur...
by vmception on Friday December 18, 2020 @01:24PM
(#25470172)
> The right of the people
> No person
This is what the courts have decided to focus on, after the police and district attorneys filed cases against property, and not people.
This is how a monopoly on power acts in absence of constitutional limitations.
Re:Justin Amash Introduces Bill to End Civil Asset Forfeitur...
by EVdotIO on Friday December 18, 2020 @02:21PM
(#25470827)
Yep, this is exactly how they are able to achieve it and will probably continue to. For a legal document, The Constitution is pretty weak and ambiguous on what authority the government has, the means of exercising power, and defined limits or procedure for operating. This is an inherent problem with any government, as it has the monopoly on force and incentives to expand its domain for any number of reasons.
I think the first big shift happened with Oliver Wendell Holmes and the move away from originalist interpretation. Arguably this was bound to happened, and will continue to expand further out. The Constitution is honestly just given a nod and has little bearing on law at this point.
Re:Justin Amash Introduces Bill to End Civil Asset Forfeitur...
by phkahler on Friday December 18, 2020 @01:48PM
(#25470452)
That's a farce. The 4th amendment is still being violated even if we accepted that.
Re:Justin Amash Introduces Bill to End Civil Asset Forfeitur...
by pmoriarty on Friday December 18, 2020 @01:13PM
(#25470039)
"against unreasonable searches and seizures"
So what counts as "unreasonable"?
Re:Justin Amash Introduces Bill to End Civil Asset Forfeitur...
by Frondo on Friday December 18, 2020 @01:23PM
(#25470166)
Not a lawyer, not a judge, not a member of congress, but I would suggest, as a starting point, that an "unreasonable seizure" is one conducted against a citizen who has not been convicted of a crime, as is the case with civil forfeiture. Up to the courts to decide, of course, but that's where I'd start.
Re:Justin Amash Introduces Bill to End Civil Asset Forfeitur...
by pmoriarty on Friday December 18, 2020 @01:47PM
(#25470437)
I happen to agree with you, but unless we're judges our opinions don't matter.
The larger point, however, is that you can't appeal to the constitution in this case, because it's so ambiguous.
Re:Justin Amash Introduces Bill to End Civil Asset Forfeitur...
by EVdotIO on Friday December 18, 2020 @02:42PM
(#25471033)
It's a huge problem and without a doubt legally ambiguous. Originalist interpretation is not a great legal framework, but it's fairly apparent some current policy is not congruent with the intention behind some of the amendments. I have no clue or power to change any of it, but it's still worth pointing out.
> 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.
The 5th amendment
> No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
IMO it's pretty cut and dry that the government can't just seize your stuff on a whim, and was written as a reaction to the British Crown doing exactly this sort of thing.