Uncivil Forfeiture

[bilby]

The law is an ass; and this is a prime example of that. The best remedy would be for either legislation, or a constitutional amendment, stating clearly that guilt is no longer a state that can be ascribed to inanimate objects. Alternatively the SCOTUS could rule that the illegal act in a given case was an insufficient fraction of the intended use of the object being seized; The example given of a cruise ship not being forfeit due to the presence of a small amount of contraband in the possession of one passenger is interesting, as the court makes it clear that such a case would need to be tried, and that therefore the case of The Palmyra, 25 U.S. (12 Wheat) 1, 14, 6 L.Ed. 531 (1827) is not a binding precedent in all cases, but that consideration must be given to the extent to which illegality is the primary purpose of the object being seized. This SCOTUS ruling in Bennis v. Michigan would appear to have significantly lessened the range of circumstances within which that argument could be made, however.

It doesn't matter what amendment you pass, the court will come up with any creative interpretation it wants to justify how it wants to rule.

Perhaps; but if so, the entire basis of your republic is fucked. Have you considered reapplying for membership of the British Empire? I am sure they will let you have Dominion status, like Canada and Australia, after a couple of centuries of probation.

 

[Togo]

It doesn't matter what amendment you pass, the court will come up with any creative interpretation it wants to justify how it wants to rule.

Perhaps; but if so, the entire basis of your republic is fucked. Have you considered reapplying for membership of the British Empire? I am sure they will let you have Dominion status, like Canada and Australia, after a couple of centuries of probation.

Well, steady on. There's a big difference between countries that while they have a thin veneer of civilisation, are basically miles of wilderness, inhabited by warring tribes, superstitious shamans and fanatics, grinding poverty and bizarre and savage local customs, and relatively civilised places like Australia and Canada. Maybe if we send them more tea? (And they promise not to drop it again, like they did last time).

 

[bilby]

Perhaps; but if so, the entire basis of your republic is fucked. Have you considered reapplying for membership of the British Empire? I am sure they will let you have Dominion status, like Canada and Australia, after a couple of centuries of probation.

Well, steady on. There's a big difference between countries that while they have a thin veneer of civilisation, are basically miles of wilderness, inhabited by warring tribes, superstitious shamans and fanatics, grinding poverty and bizarre and savage local customs, and relatively civilised places like Australia and Canada.

True, but Scotland is, nevertheless, still part of the British Empire.

Sorry, what were we talking about again?

 

[dismal]

It's in my car. How would they prove it's theirs?

They don't have to. that's the sick part.

If it's a civil suit you'd think they'd have to. Unless the government owns the courts and has rigged the game of course.

 

[dismal]

The law is an ass; and this is a prime example of that. The best remedy would be for either legislation, or a constitutional amendment, stating clearly that guilt is no longer a state that can be ascribed to inanimate objects. Alternatively the SCOTUS could rule that the illegal act in a given case was an insufficient fraction of the intended use of the object being seized; The example given of a cruise ship not being forfeit due to the presence of a small amount of contraband in the possession of one passenger is interesting, as the court makes it clear that such a case would need to be tried, and that therefore the case of The Palmyra, 25 U.S. (12 Wheat) 1, 14, 6 L.Ed. 531 (1827) is not a binding precedent in all cases, but that consideration must be given to the extent to which illegality is the primary purpose of the object being seized. This SCOTUS ruling in Bennis v. Michigan would appear to have significantly lessened the range of circumstances within which that argument could be made, however.

It doesn't matter what amendment you pass, the court will come up with any creative interpretation it wants to justify how it wants to rule.

This is what the left calls a "living Constitution". Supposedly it's a plus.

The fact is we already have an amendment in the Constitution that specifically prohibits this. I linked it earlier.

 

[Valjean]

Submit to small injustices and they will become routine, they will multiply and we will become a police state.
How about this approach: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yEjmfKJvMP4