> the Supreme Court has held that civil forfeiture DOES NOT violate the Due Process Clause.
The Supreme Court is wrong.
The Supreme Court once ruled that interning people in concentration camps and seizing everything they owned based on nothing more than their ethnicity didn't violate the Constitution.
The Supreme Court once ruled that separate-but-equal was constitutionally a-okay.
The Supreme Court was wrong in those cases and they're wrong here. There's simply no way to square the idea of the government taking people's property from them based on nothing but a mere accusation with the letter and spirit of the Constitution. The fact that the government has disingenuously twisted itself into logical pretzels and constructed bizarre legal fictions to justify its opporessive behavior does not cure what it is an obvious constitutional violation to anyone with even 3rd-grade level intelligence.
> > In asset forfeiture cases, since the government > > is technically filing the lawsuit against the stuff, > > arguing that the stuff itself is guilty,
> How can he or his assets be complicit under the law of > a country he has never stepped foot inside?
I've always thought it would be interesting to challenge this crap using the government's own legal fiction and bullshit games against it.
If they're going to perversely argue that property-- inanimate objects, or even more bizarre, ones and zeroes in computer somewhere-- is somehow "guilty" of the crime charged, to the point of even listing the property as the actual defendant in the case, then make the government *prove* the property guilty of all the required elements of the crime, which in most cases involves an element of intent.
In other words, make the government prove that house or that boat or that money *intended* to traffick in drugs or contraband.
For those massive multiplex theaters that are surrounded by a couple of acres of parking lot, I'm sure they could easily dial down their blocking so that it encompasses mostly just the building, with whatever bleed-over still well within their property lines.
> One option is to build Faraday cages into > theater architecture. San Francisco's Cliff > House (a restaurant, not a theater) is built > in that way, and there's no service whatsoever > while in the building.
I'm all for this idea, since the FCC refuses to allow private property owners to control this nonsense in the most direct way, by jamming the frakking things, passive blocking is definitely something I'd consider when building a theater or concert hall.
I'm sure some braindead cell addict would claim that's a violation of their constitutional right to text and their right to annoy everyone around them, and there'd be an equally braindead judge somewhere that would take such a complaint seriously.
It seems to be getting worse and worse in movie theaters, too. The new trend seems to be people who walk into the theater (late, after the lights have gone down, of course) with the app on that turns their flash into a flashlight, shining it into everyone else's eyes as they look for their seats.
It's enraging beyond belief. I wonder how people managed to find a seat in a theater before cell phones?
Since the McDonald's is not public property, it's legally absurd that the city could charge a customer with trespassing without the cooperation of the restaurant. Otherwise, all the reporters would have to do is call the manager to the stand and have him testify, "No, I didn't ask them to leave and they were not trespassing in my restaurant."
I must have missed the meeting where everybody decided that having actual national borders is a violation of basic human rights. (But only for the U.S.-- every other country can have borders with no problem.)
> Expect the knock-on effects to result in > harassment of innocent citizens.
Unless those citizens are swimming across a river or climbing a fence to get into the country, I see no reason why they'd be harassed. Indeed, if they *are* doing those things, they deserve to be harassed right along with the illegals.
"...nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."
How does that not apply? They're taking the private property of citizens for (ostensibly) public use-- law enforcement purposes-- and not compensating them for it.
Since the Supreme Court has ruled that "just compensation" is fair market value, then the DEA should have to pay the fair market value for the $77,000 in cash that it took-- and fair market value on $77,000 in cash turns out to be $77,000.