skews13
Diamond Member
- Mar 18, 2017
- 9,532
- 11,997
- 2,265
Not only does the absurd judgment by the clown judge Engeron violate Trumps's 8th Amendment rights, it is also based on a statute that is unconstitutional.
Making the entire trial an obscene play. Lead by an obscene judge who really cares nothing for the oath he swore.
In 1998, however, the Court injected vitality into the strictures of the clause. "The touchstone of the constitutional inquiry under the Excessive Fines Clause is the principle of proportionality: The amount of the forfeiture must bear some relationship to the gravity of the offense that it is designed to punish." In United States v. Bajakajian, the government sought to require that a criminal defendant charged with violating federal reporting requirements regarding the transportation of more than $10,000 in currency out of the country forfeit the currency involved, which totaled $357,144. The Court held that the forfeiture in this particular case violated the Excessive Fines Cause because the amount forfeited was "grossly disproportionate to the gravity of defendant’s offense." In determining proportionality, the Court did not limit itself to a comparison of the fine amount to the proven offense, but it also considered the particular facts of the case, the character of the defendant, and the harm caused by the offense.
And see:
Opinion analysis: Eighth Amendment’s ban on excessive fines applies to the states - SCOTUSblog
The Supreme Court today ruled that the Eighth Amendment’s ban on excessive fines applies to the states. The decision is a victory for an Indiana man whose luxury SUV was seized after he pleaded guilty to selling heroin. It is also a blow to state and local governments, for whom fines and forfeitureswww.scotusblog.com
It's a state civil case. The eighth amendment doesn't have anything to do with it.
