Skip to comments.Policing for Profit? Lawmakers, advocates raise alarm at growing govít power to seize property
Posted on 05/10/2014 5:26:21 PM PDT by Innovative
In civil forfeiture, authorities dont have to prove guilt, file charges or obtain a conviction before seizing private property. Critics say it is a process ripe for abuse, and one which leaves citizens little means of fighting back.
They said they wanted his Tewksbury, Mass., business and the land it was on because they suspected it was a hotbed for drug-dealing and prostitution.
After a four-day trial, on Jan. 24, 2013, a federal judge in Boston dismissed the forfeiture action against the motel, ruling that the government engaged in gross exaggeration of the evidence and did not have authority to seize the property.
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
“Critics say it is a process ripe for abuse....”
No sh*t, Dick Tracy.
King George III would have been proud how our Masters have slipped around the Constitution and the Declaration without triggering retribution...
Cliven Bundy is RACISS!!!
just like NAZI Germany and Soviet Union tyranny - but always the so-called WOD with some people as if all bad things happen because not everybody is high. Legalize it and the tyranny remains without a doubt.
Nut-job Conspiracy Theory Ping!
To get onto The Nut-job Conspiracy Theory Ping List you must threaten to report me to the Mods if I don't add you to the list...
If the system won’t protect you then they have sided with the thieves of the enemy.
How can one legalize what is not legitimately lawful to prohibit?
This is to say: how can one legalize what congress has no power to illegalize?
The entire War on Drugs is predicated on the fallacy that is Wickard v. Filburn.
Covering for these bad decisions has lead to the ridiculous ruling that non-comerce is regulable by congress under the interstate commerce clause.
The prison pimps have no time for such logic and analysis, let alone discussion or reform. They cower at the mere thought that someone would choose something other than alcohol to unwind. They see themselves as the kingpins of our nation of jailers, unaccountable for their actions and immune to the reality of their precious antidrug policies.
How d'ya like me NOW.
Better yet...what’s mine is mine and what’s your is mine
Some people are smart enough to remember how these laws were justified and it was directly due to the war on (some) drugs. Without the justification for these laws the laws don’t need to exist anymore.
Could you provide a source for that quote? I don’t recall it.
Kennedy was talking about communism. He sounds so reasonable compared to what we have now. The govt we have now is un-American.
As has been said many times in recent years, JFK would have no place in today's Washington Democratic Party, most certainly not as a presidential candidate.
I was somewhat aware of politics at that time, yet I have no recollection whatsoever of this quote. What is the source, and it accurate, what do you suppose JFK was referring to?
I too have been yelling about this for longer than I can even remember. Supporters of the war on drugs are some of the biggest dangers to liberty this country has. I'm sick to death of the 'left' and 'right' taking turns destroying my rights from both sides.
Some people are smart enough to remember how these laws were justified and it was directly due to the war on (some) drugs. Without the justification for these laws the laws dont need to exist anymore.
You'd think so, if you are a rational thinker. However, if you actually go back, and dig through the prescident (sp?) that are the foundations of the war on drugs, and follow the rabbit all the way down the hole, you will find that the entire ediface of the drug war rests primarily upon cases adjudicated during prohibition.
Think about that for a second. Why were the laws correctly decided originally? Well, we have a constitutional amendment making those laws legal. They were directly supported by a (stupidly enacted) amendment to the constitution itself. Therefore, the laws had a firm foundation.
Now ... how did prohibition end? Right! They repealed the amendment that was used to build that entire foundation of case law. Why weren't all those cases and decisions rendered moot from a precident perspective after the repeal of prohibition? Well, the government decided it liked the power it had usurped, and didn't want to give it back.
Lots of people point to the commerce clause (and the many evils that surround it) when looking at drug laws, but ultimately, the case law was not buillt on commerce. It was built on an existant constitutional amendment. The entirety of the war on drugs is a house without a foundation.
Yet we sell have freepers that support it.
I'm not sure where it comes from or even if it is accurate, but my best guess is the federal reserve, given what was going on at the time.
Thank God that these people weren't in charge during the times of the American Revolution or it wouldn't have happened.