Giving civil asset forfeiture hasn't actually been tried in enough courts to establish enough constitutional case law what you say is an uneducated inaccuracy at best.

Also the Constitution United States isn't a law or statue. Laws can violate the Constitution because the constitution sets out limits for laws it's not a law in of itself.

I'm pretty sure you already knew the first part... but given Hacker News doesn't like illogical claims without evidence I figure I'd make sure you knew why you were getting downvoted.

You’re not wrong about Civil Forfeiture not being given enough time in court, but in regards to your commentary about the Constitution serving as law, well the Constitution makes this part clear:

> This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

Now whilst the Constitution was written to be understood by a learned 18th Century gentleman, or the average Joe of the time, not just the lawyers, the problematic part comes from the fact that it is law and laws require enforcement and penalties for its violation. Each branch of the Federal Government is bound by oath to uphold it (in the legislative process, prior to the Executive signing off on it and issuing new rules, as well as when it is in dispute before the courts). Clearly that does not evenly occur.