Civil asset forfeiture is something that needs to be ended. Permanently. Hopefully Trump will overrule Sessions on this unjust crap.
However as the article states, Congress can act and Trump could sign and do away with forfeiture. Which would be the right thing. And as a bonus solidify Trump's record as a proactive executive.
That does not describe what's happening.
Upon conviction, the proceeds of criminal activity should be forfeited. But ONLY upon conviction.
I’d love to read the article, but Forbes Magazine does not like my AdBlock software, and I’m not willing to give that up.
I suspect this is a weighty subject. My first thought was eminent domain, itself a topic that deserves carful deliberation. Somewhat related, are the rights of a minority of condo owners against the majority.
What are the rights of a property owning minority, compared to the majority?
Sure I think property rights are important. But can a hold-out individual stop development of a dam? The development of a city block?
Granted, asset forfeiture is different. The threshold for asset forfeiture should be high, as it should be for exercising eminent domain, or forcing a minority of condo owners to the will of a majority. But the threshold should not be prohibitively high.
By best (or at least initial) effort to address this generally is: look to the specifics, to precedent, and to the language of law.
If he’s on board with seizures of property before conviction, I have a problem with him. After, I don’t care.
Session is the man. Go Trump! Go Sessions!
Maybe you can ask Hillary who she’d recommend for AG.....
Civil forfeiture is perfectly fine for certain crimes. As long as it occurs AFTER a successful prosecution.
Hopefully Trump will move to reinstate in full the Bill of Rights in every state of the US, no exceptions.
Hopefully our side will grill him on this issue. Asset forfeiture is nothing more than state theft. The notion that the state can take money on your person because they deem it “too much” so it must be drug money is disgusting. I don’t see too much hope that they will though because the Republicans were too busy stampeding each other to sponsor the legislation allowing asset forfeiture. If you had questions about it you were in favor of kids doing heroin.
They think that it is wrong for the government to take property from someone.
When the supreme court allows emanate domain guess what follows.
Yeah, I see a problem. 84 percent of Americans are against it and it is fundamentally un constitutional but the Elites do it any way.
Civil Asset Forfeiture is legalized theft, and it is WRONG. I’ve seen it happen, and the “property” is assumed guilty, until a gaggle of lawyers proves otherwise, and that often takes years. This generally doesn’t happen to rich people; it happens to people who don’t have the financial ability to hire lawyers and fight, and these local cops/DAs know this.
I’m still not sure to what extent Sessions supports civil forfeitures and if he’s actually claiming law enforcement should seize property any time it wants for no valid reason without due process, but he’s not the supreme authority over civil forfeiture issues. I would be more concerned with how Trump’s judicial and SCOTUS nominees view the issue. And it’s also the responsibility of Congress to reaffirm the 5th amendment through legislation as well as the states.
“All your everything are belong to us” -Government
Many years ago, I read:
Lost Rights: The Destruction of American Liberty (1994)
by James Bovard.
He is from the libertarian side of the right. I still remember one story he told. A man had a very expensive, wooden speed boat. This same kind of boat (cigar boat?) was used by drug dealers. This was in Florida.
Authorities (DEA?, Coast Guard?) boarded his boat, took axes to it to see if their were any drugs in hollow panels of the boat. (My rudimentary understanding is that hollow panels increase buoyancy). They pretty much demolished his very expensive boat. They did not find any drugs.
He asked for compensation. He sued for compensation. Lawyers are expensive. I don’t think the suit had been resolved at the time the book was published.
Bovard was of the “we lost the war on drugs, let’s not lose our freedom too” school of thought. I’m not sure I buy that fully, but I do understand the argument. Anyway, he writes a hard-hitting book (all items picked from one side of the ledger).
I wouldn’t be surprised if most asset forfeiture are about drug ALLEGATIONS.