This is one of those cases where a narrow issue was involved but a much larger one is also involved in a big picture way. I will grant my eyes glazed over hearing them talk about the narrow issue. But, we should not forget in these cases (more often than not probably) there are also larger issues.
Okay. Now for a trivial thing. When did "bucket" thing start? There seems to be a popular thing these days where categorizing things becomes putting things in "buckets." Who even uses the word "bucket" anymore?
The only way I will agree to this if you freeze the assets of all the millionaires, a billionaires who are cheating on their taxes, that is a crime, and the government should take their assets as well. Looking at you Donald Trump. But you see they’re scared to do that because these people have money and can fight against them. I imagine most of the assets they seize are smaller properties with people with lower income that cannot afford to fight a legal battle.
about 10 years ago i wrote a law review article opposing this draconian and likely unconstitutional procedure. possession at common law is presumed to be lawful possession. thus it is on the government to prove the possession be criminal. ok so there is a statute. well, what about the takings clause, hm? From the policy perspective "asset forfeiture" is an invitation to corruption and selective law enforcement, diverting prosecutorial resources from violent crimes towards ... vacuuming up cash.
I actually travel with cash hoping to be asseit forfeited so I can have standing. Go For it!
yeah, the idiotic "anything goes" approach to constitutional interpretation means our so called elites cannot even figure out what “nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation” means. Hint: taking my property and then letting private persons use it for setting up a (competing!) business is NOT a "public use".
I don't get what is so complicated. I've participated in retention hearings, and in my experience they have nothing to do with inhibiting criminals . . . rather, they are flat out thefts by police and prosecutors.
This is one of those cases where a narrow issue was involved but a much larger one is also involved in a big picture way. I will grant my eyes glazed over hearing them talk about the narrow issue. But, we should not forget in these cases (more often than not probably) there are also larger issues.
Okay. Now for a trivial thing. When did "bucket" thing start? There seems to be a popular thing these days where categorizing things becomes putting things in "buckets." Who even uses the word "bucket" anymore?
The only way I will agree to this if you freeze the assets of all the millionaires, a billionaires who are cheating on their taxes, that is a crime, and the government should take their assets as well. Looking at you Donald Trump. But you see they’re scared to do that because these people have money and can fight against them. I imagine most of the assets they seize are smaller properties with people with lower income that cannot afford to fight a legal battle.
about 10 years ago i wrote a law review article opposing this draconian and likely unconstitutional procedure. possession at common law is presumed to be lawful possession. thus it is on the government to prove the possession be criminal. ok so there is a statute. well, what about the takings clause, hm? From the policy perspective "asset forfeiture" is an invitation to corruption and selective law enforcement, diverting prosecutorial resources from violent crimes towards ... vacuuming up cash.
I actually travel with cash hoping to be asseit forfeited so I can have standing. Go For it!
If I understand correctly though, the takings clause has been completely eviserated.
yeah, the idiotic "anything goes" approach to constitutional interpretation means our so called elites cannot even figure out what “nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation” means. Hint: taking my property and then letting private persons use it for setting up a (competing!) business is NOT a "public use".
I don't get what is so complicated. I've participated in retention hearings, and in my experience they have nothing to do with inhibiting criminals . . . rather, they are flat out thefts by police and prosecutors.