Posted on 08/22/2011 7:12:50 PM PDT by rabscuttle385
I have a problem with asset seizures. If the government were to pursue a fine against an alleged criminal,the DA would have to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. But asset seizure allows the DA to seize the same amount of money from the defendant — with a lower burden of proof — by stamping the procedure “civil” rather than criminal. How did the Constitution become interpreted to allow the government to do indirectly what it cannot do directly?
And the sheeple silently watch American Idol....
“But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security.”
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.