How can civil asset forfeiture laws still be legal?

[WinterBorn]

Are the rights listed in the Bill of Rights for only one individual? Or are they guaranteed for more than one (plural?) individuals?

The People.

The right (singular) of the people (plural). Each amendment guarantees a right for the people (citizens - each individuals).

Daniel, this is nothing more than your childish refusal to admit you are wrong. You started down this road on another thread. There is NO WAY the Bill of Rights was written to guarantee rights to groups of people but not individuals. That is simply ridiculous.

Find a new (maybe serious?) slant on things. This is dead.

The militia is also plural. The People are the Militia.

You are making connections and assumptions without any evidence.

Unless you have something new, you are just spouting nonsense over and over.

all i need is a dictionary not a story, story teller.

You need more than a dictionary, liar.

 

[danielpalos]

The People.

The right (singular) of the people (plural). Each amendment guarantees a right for the people (citizens - each individuals).

Daniel, this is nothing more than your childish refusal to admit you are wrong. You started down this road on another thread. There is NO WAY the Bill of Rights was written to guarantee rights to groups of people but not individuals. That is simply ridiculous.

Find a new (maybe serious?) slant on things. This is dead.

The militia is also plural. The People are the Militia.

You are making connections and assumptions without any evidence.

Unless you have something new, you are just spouting nonsense over and over.

all i need is a dictionary not a story, story teller.

You need more than a dictionary, liar.

no, i don't. Words are defined in dictionaries, like Socialism. One definition that supports my contention, is All I need.

 

[WinterBorn]

The right (singular) of the people (plural). Each amendment guarantees a right for the people (citizens - each individuals).

Daniel, this is nothing more than your childish refusal to admit you are wrong. You started down this road on another thread. There is NO WAY the Bill of Rights was written to guarantee rights to groups of people but not individuals. That is simply ridiculous.

Find a new (maybe serious?) slant on things. This is dead.

The militia is also plural. The People are the Militia.

You are making connections and assumptions without any evidence.

Unless you have something new, you are just spouting nonsense over and over.

all i need is a dictionary not a story, story teller.

You need more than a dictionary, liar.

no, i don't. Words are defined in dictionaries, like Socialism. One definition that supports my contention, is All I need.

Supports your contention? Bullshit. The fact that a plural word was used when describing an entire population defends nothing of the sort.

 

[danielpalos]

The militia is also plural. The People are the Militia.

You are making connections and assumptions without any evidence.

Unless you have something new, you are just spouting nonsense over and over.

all i need is a dictionary not a story, story teller.

You need more than a dictionary, liar.

no, i don't. Words are defined in dictionaries, like Socialism. One definition that supports my contention, is All I need.

Supports your contention? Bullshit. The fact that a plural word was used when describing an entire population defends nothing of the sort.

Yes, it does, if we have to frivolously quibble, right wing appeals to ignorance. Both terms, militia and the people are plural; not singular or individual, if we have to quibble.

 

[WinterBorn]

You are making connections and assumptions without any evidence.

Unless you have something new, you are just spouting nonsense over and over.

all i need is a dictionary not a story, story teller.

You need more than a dictionary, liar.

no, i don't. Words are defined in dictionaries, like Socialism. One definition that supports my contention, is All I need.

Supports your contention? Bullshit. The fact that a plural word was used when describing an entire population defends nothing of the sort.

Yes, it does, if we have to frivolously quibble, right wing appeals to ignorance. Both terms, militia and the people are plural; not singular or individual, if we have to quibble.

Repeating the same lie does not make it truth. I have never argued that "people" is not plural. Yet, you keep stating it like anyone is arguing it.

Find a new tactic, Dannyboy. Like your "I want my turn", this has failed. I'll not continue to respond to simply repeating nonsense.

 

[danielpalos]

all i need is a dictionary not a story, story teller.

You need more than a dictionary, liar.

no, i don't. Words are defined in dictionaries, like Socialism. One definition that supports my contention, is All I need.

Supports your contention? Bullshit. The fact that a plural word was used when describing an entire population defends nothing of the sort.

Yes, it does, if we have to frivolously quibble, right wing appeals to ignorance. Both terms, militia and the people are plural; not singular or individual, if we have to quibble.

Repeating the same lie does not make it truth. I have never argued that "people" is not plural. Yet, you keep stating it like anyone is arguing it.

Find a new tactic, Dannyboy. Like your "I want my turn", this has failed. I'll not continue to respond to simply repeating nonsense.

Civil rights are plural.

 

[WinterBorn]

You need more than a dictionary, liar.

no, i don't. Words are defined in dictionaries, like Socialism. One definition that supports my contention, is All I need.

Supports your contention? Bullshit. The fact that a plural word was used when describing an entire population defends nothing of the sort.

Yes, it does, if we have to frivolously quibble, right wing appeals to ignorance. Both terms, militia and the people are plural; not singular or individual, if we have to quibble.

Repeating the same lie does not make it truth. I have never argued that "people" is not plural. Yet, you keep stating it like anyone is arguing it.

Find a new tactic, Dannyboy. Like your "I want my turn", this has failed. I'll not continue to respond to simply repeating nonsense.

Civil rights are plural.

So is "persons".

 

[rightwinger]

I am driving a $70,000 BMW and I get caught with an ounce of weed
You are driving a 1998 Civic and get caught with an ounce of weed

How is asset forfeiture equitable

 

[danielpalos]

no, i don't. Words are defined in dictionaries, like Socialism. One definition that supports my contention, is All I need.

Supports your contention? Bullshit. The fact that a plural word was used when describing an entire population defends nothing of the sort.

Yes, it does, if we have to frivolously quibble, right wing appeals to ignorance. Both terms, militia and the people are plural; not singular or individual, if we have to quibble.

Repeating the same lie does not make it truth. I have never argued that "people" is not plural. Yet, you keep stating it like anyone is arguing it.

Find a new tactic, Dannyboy. Like your "I want my turn", this has failed. I'll not continue to respond to simply repeating nonsense.

Civil rights are plural.

So is "persons".

Too bad, they didn't use, Persons; but People.

 

[Montrovant]

Supports your contention? Bullshit. The fact that a plural word was used when describing an entire population defends nothing of the sort.

Yes, it does, if we have to frivolously quibble, right wing appeals to ignorance. Both terms, militia and the people are plural; not singular or individual, if we have to quibble.

Repeating the same lie does not make it truth. I have never argued that "people" is not plural. Yet, you keep stating it like anyone is arguing it.

Find a new tactic, Dannyboy. Like your "I want my turn", this has failed. I'll not continue to respond to simply repeating nonsense.

Civil rights are plural.

So is "persons".

Too bad, they didn't use, Persons; but People.

Let's clarify a bit here. Are you arguing that because the Constitution uses the word 'people' when describing rights, that those rights do not apply to individuals?

 

[WinterBorn]

Yes, it does, if we have to frivolously quibble, right wing appeals to ignorance. Both terms, militia and the people are plural; not singular or individual, if we have to quibble.

Repeating the same lie does not make it truth. I have never argued that "people" is not plural. Yet, you keep stating it like anyone is arguing it.

Find a new tactic, Dannyboy. Like your "I want my turn", this has failed. I'll not continue to respond to simply repeating nonsense.

Civil rights are plural.

So is "persons".

Too bad, they didn't use, Persons; but People.

Let's clarify a bit here. Are you arguing that because the Constitution uses the word 'people' when describing rights, that those rights do not apply to individuals?

That is exactly what he is arguing. That is his basis for claiming that the US Constitution does not guarantee individual rights. But that the state constitutions do, since they use the word "persons".

 

[Montrovant]

Repeating the same lie does not make it truth. I have never argued that "people" is not plural. Yet, you keep stating it like anyone is arguing it.

Find a new tactic, Dannyboy. Like your "I want my turn", this has failed. I'll not continue to respond to simply repeating nonsense.

Civil rights are plural.

So is "persons".

Too bad, they didn't use, Persons; but People.

Let's clarify a bit here. Are you arguing that because the Constitution uses the word 'people' when describing rights, that those rights do not apply to individuals?

That is exactly what he is arguing. That is his basis for claiming that the US Constitution does not guarantee individual rights. But that the state constitutions do, since they use the word "persons".

That certainly seems to be true, but I wanted to give an opportunity for danielpalos to explain if that is somehow not what he means. It is so ridiculous, especially considering the term "persons" is used numerous times in the federal Constitution, that it seemed like a good idea to see if there is some sort of misunderstanding.

Or perhaps he is just trolling.

 

[WinterBorn]

Civil rights are plural.

So is "persons".

Too bad, they didn't use, Persons; but People.

Let's clarify a bit here. Are you arguing that because the Constitution uses the word 'people' when describing rights, that those rights do not apply to individuals?

That is exactly what he is arguing. That is his basis for claiming that the US Constitution does not guarantee individual rights. But that the state constitutions do, since they use the word "persons".

That certainly seems to be true, but I wanted to give an opportunity for danielpalos to explain if that is somehow not what he means. It is so ridiculous, especially considering the term "persons" is used numerous times in the federal Constitution, that it seemed like a good idea to see if there is some sort of misunderstanding.

Or perhaps he is just trolling.

It started in another thread with Daniel claiming that the 2nd amendment is a collective right, not an individual right. And he steadfastly refuses to admit he is wrong. So when I pointed out that the 1st and 4th amendments also used the word "people" he shifted to an even more ridiculous claim. The US Constitution does not guarantee individual rights. Only the state constitutions do that. Because the state constitution he quoted used the term "persons" instead of "people".

 

[Rambunctious]

The one thing our nations elected representatives have in common is they dislike the constitution....they have different reasons for their disdain of the document but it all comes down to power...the constitution and bill of rights stand as the rule book for legislators to follow...it limits their power and they don't like that...
The beauty of the constitution is elected officials are sworn to protect the constitution, their book of rules....some liberal officials are so bold lately as to call for it's removal from our government...to remove the rule book they must obey...and to leave us with no protection from them at all....

No matter what side of the political spectrum you reside....never allow them to chip at our constitution...never allow the Constitution nor the Bill of Rights to become political...or we will all lose!!!!!!

 

[danielpalos]

Yes, it does, if we have to frivolously quibble, right wing appeals to ignorance. Both terms, militia and the people are plural; not singular or individual, if we have to quibble.

Repeating the same lie does not make it truth. I have never argued that "people" is not plural. Yet, you keep stating it like anyone is arguing it.

Find a new tactic, Dannyboy. Like your "I want my turn", this has failed. I'll not continue to respond to simply repeating nonsense.

Civil rights are plural.

So is "persons".

Too bad, they didn't use, Persons; but People.

Let's clarify a bit here. Are you arguing that because the Constitution uses the word 'people' when describing rights, that those rights do not apply to individuals?

We are quibbling the concept of natural and individual rights. Civil rights are clearly established, for the People.

 

[danielpalos]

Repeating the same lie does not make it truth. I have never argued that "people" is not plural. Yet, you keep stating it like anyone is arguing it.

Find a new tactic, Dannyboy. Like your "I want my turn", this has failed. I'll not continue to respond to simply repeating nonsense.

Civil rights are plural.

So is "persons".

Too bad, they didn't use, Persons; but People.

Let's clarify a bit here. Are you arguing that because the Constitution uses the word 'people' when describing rights, that those rights do not apply to individuals?

That is exactly what he is arguing. That is his basis for claiming that the US Constitution does not guarantee individual rights. But that the state constitutions do, since they use the word "persons".

No, they aren't. Dred Scott should have Never happened, if right wing propaganda had, Any, validity.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

I was reading an article Since 2007, the DEA has taken $3.2 billion in cash from people not charged with a crime

$3.2 billion in cash seized from people who were never charged with a crime? How is this legal or constitutional? And since the departments who do the seizure get to KEEP THE MONEY, how is there not some serious judicial oversight?

There are few things more wrong than for law enforcement to be able to simply confiscate someone's money or property because they insist it is crime related, but not have to show any crime.

Asset forfeiture laws are legal and Constitutional because they concern solely the private property used in the commission of a crime, having nothing to do with the guilt or innocence of the property owners:

‘At bottom, petitioner's claims depend on an argument that the Michigan forfeiture statute is unfair because it relieves prosecutors from the burden of separating co-owners who are complicit in the wrongful use of property from innocent co-owners. This argument, in the abstract, has considerable appeal, as we acknowledged in Goldsmith-Grant, 254 U. S., at 510. Its force is reduced in the instant case, however, by the Michigan Supreme Court's confirmation of the trial court's remedial discretion, see supra, at 446, and petitioner's recognition that Michigan may forfeit her and her husband's car whether or not she is entitled to an offset for her interest in it, Tr. of Oral Arg. 7, 9.

We conclude today, as we concluded 75 years ago, that the cases authorizing actions of the kind at issue are "too firmly fixed in the punitive and remedial jurisprudence of the country to be now displaced." Goldsmith-Grant, supra, at 511. The State here sought to deter illegal activity that contributes to neighborhood deterioration and unsafe streets. The Bennis automobile, it is conceded, facilitated and was used in criminal activity.’ ibid

Asset forfeiture laws, of course, are not carte blanche for law enforcement agencies to take money or property in the complete absent of criminal wrongdoing.

But there must, at least, be wrongdoing. I understand why it is done when someone is convicted of a crime. But when they are not even charged?

Because the asset is the 'offender,' for lack a better word.

As such the forfeiture is not subject to due process, the seizure is not punitive because it's not connected to the alleged wrongdoing.

I hope you are misreading the ruling about this. By the reasoning you just described, the government can take any property, at any time, for any reason. That is what no due process boils down to.

From a brief look at Bennis, it seems to me that the court specifically stated that the forfeiture law was acceptable for property misused or wrongfully used (used in illegal acts). When such property is not misused in such a way, a person should not need to fight to have the property returned to them; the law enforcement agency which seized the property should return such property as a matter of policy.

I'm not a big fan of civil forfeiture in general, but when a person has not been charged with any crime and has their property seized, that seems like a clear violation of the fourth to me. Are you aware of any USSC rulings regarding that sort of civil forfeiture?

No, the ruling doesn't authorize the taking of private property absence due process, the property must be used in the commission of a crime, or otherwise unlawfully.

 

[rightwinger]

I was reading an article Since 2007, the DEA has taken $3.2 billion in cash from people not charged with a crime

$3.2 billion in cash seized from people who were never charged with a crime? How is this legal or constitutional? And since the departments who do the seizure get to KEEP THE MONEY, how is there not some serious judicial oversight?

There are few things more wrong than for law enforcement to be able to simply confiscate someone's money or property because they insist it is crime related, but not have to show any crime.

Asset forfeiture laws are legal and Constitutional because they concern solely the private property used in the commission of a crime, having nothing to do with the guilt or innocence of the property owners:

‘At bottom, petitioner's claims depend on an argument that the Michigan forfeiture statute is unfair because it relieves prosecutors from the burden of separating co-owners who are complicit in the wrongful use of property from innocent co-owners. This argument, in the abstract, has considerable appeal, as we acknowledged in Goldsmith-Grant, 254 U. S., at 510. Its force is reduced in the instant case, however, by the Michigan Supreme Court's confirmation of the trial court's remedial discretion, see supra, at 446, and petitioner's recognition that Michigan may forfeit her and her husband's car whether or not she is entitled to an offset for her interest in it, Tr. of Oral Arg. 7, 9.

We conclude today, as we concluded 75 years ago, that the cases authorizing actions of the kind at issue are "too firmly fixed in the punitive and remedial jurisprudence of the country to be now displaced." Goldsmith-Grant, supra, at 511. The State here sought to deter illegal activity that contributes to neighborhood deterioration and unsafe streets. The Bennis automobile, it is conceded, facilitated and was used in criminal activity.’ ibid

Asset forfeiture laws, of course, are not carte blanche for law enforcement agencies to take money or property in the complete absent of criminal wrongdoing.

But there must, at least, be wrongdoing. I understand why it is done when someone is convicted of a crime. But when they are not even charged?

Because the asset is the 'offender,' for lack a better word.

As such the forfeiture is not subject to due process, the seizure is not punitive because it's not connected to the alleged wrongdoing.

I hope you are misreading the ruling about this. By the reasoning you just described, the government can take any property, at any time, for any reason. That is what no due process boils down to.

From a brief look at Bennis, it seems to me that the court specifically stated that the forfeiture law was acceptable for property misused or wrongfully used (used in illegal acts). When such property is not misused in such a way, a person should not need to fight to have the property returned to them; the law enforcement agency which seized the property should return such property as a matter of policy.

I'm not a big fan of civil forfeiture in general, but when a person has not been charged with any crime and has their property seized, that seems like a clear violation of the fourth to me. Are you aware of any USSC rulings regarding that sort of civil forfeiture?

No, the ruling doesn't authorize the taking of private property absence due process, the property must be used in the commission of a crime, or otherwise unlawfully.

It is still absent due process

You don’t have to be convicted only accused

 

[danielpalos]

I was reading an article Since 2007, the DEA has taken $3.2 billion in cash from people not charged with a crime

$3.2 billion in cash seized from people who were never charged with a crime? How is this legal or constitutional? And since the departments who do the seizure get to KEEP THE MONEY, how is there not some serious judicial oversight?

There are few things more wrong than for law enforcement to be able to simply confiscate someone's money or property because they insist it is crime related, but not have to show any crime.

Asset forfeiture laws are legal and Constitutional because they concern solely the private property used in the commission of a crime, having nothing to do with the guilt or innocence of the property owners:

‘At bottom, petitioner's claims depend on an argument that the Michigan forfeiture statute is unfair because it relieves prosecutors from the burden of separating co-owners who are complicit in the wrongful use of property from innocent co-owners. This argument, in the abstract, has considerable appeal, as we acknowledged in Goldsmith-Grant, 254 U. S., at 510. Its force is reduced in the instant case, however, by the Michigan Supreme Court's confirmation of the trial court's remedial discretion, see supra, at 446, and petitioner's recognition that Michigan may forfeit her and her husband's car whether or not she is entitled to an offset for her interest in it, Tr. of Oral Arg. 7, 9.

We conclude today, as we concluded 75 years ago, that the cases authorizing actions of the kind at issue are "too firmly fixed in the punitive and remedial jurisprudence of the country to be now displaced." Goldsmith-Grant, supra, at 511. The State here sought to deter illegal activity that contributes to neighborhood deterioration and unsafe streets. The Bennis automobile, it is conceded, facilitated and was used in criminal activity.’ ibid

Asset forfeiture laws, of course, are not carte blanche for law enforcement agencies to take money or property in the complete absent of criminal wrongdoing.

But there must, at least, be wrongdoing. I understand why it is done when someone is convicted of a crime. But when they are not even charged?

Because the asset is the 'offender,' for lack a better word.

As such the forfeiture is not subject to due process, the seizure is not punitive because it's not connected to the alleged wrongdoing.

I hope you are misreading the ruling about this. By the reasoning you just described, the government can take any property, at any time, for any reason. That is what no due process boils down to.

From a brief look at Bennis, it seems to me that the court specifically stated that the forfeiture law was acceptable for property misused or wrongfully used (used in illegal acts). When such property is not misused in such a way, a person should not need to fight to have the property returned to them; the law enforcement agency which seized the property should return such property as a matter of policy.

I'm not a big fan of civil forfeiture in general, but when a person has not been charged with any crime and has their property seized, that seems like a clear violation of the fourth to me. Are you aware of any USSC rulings regarding that sort of civil forfeiture?

No, the ruling doesn't authorize the taking of private property absence due process, the property must be used in the commission of a crime, or otherwise unlawfully.

Prohibition is unconstitutional; any individual and natural rights view, supports the People, not Government.

 

[Marion Morrison]

Unconstitutional rules that directly violate the 4th Amendment. They can "seize" a Hummer for someone having a roach in their ashtray.

It's part of Bush's "War on Drugs" and "Patriot Act" aka: Expand the government.

It started during Reagan...

Yeah, and-?

Don't get the hershey squirts over it..

Why was Reagan shot? So Bush could run things.

It was a staged play since Reagan was an actor...

Yeah, that's why he almost died from a .22 bullet. Not even a direct hit.

How many rights did millions of Americans lose as a result of that? That crap was contrived.