Posted on 06/25/2017 2:22:59 PM PDT by nickcarraway
FWIW, the late RJ Rummell credited the PRC(Mao Tse Tung et al.) with 76.7 million murders, USSR (Lenin, Stalin, et al.) with 61.9 million murders, and the Third Reich (Hitler) with 20.9 million murders.
His exhaustive study of genocide and democide is well worth reading and understanding. Most of what is considered ‘knowledge’ on the topic in popular culture is inadequate, inaccurate, and incomplete.
___________________
I had not realized Rummell had died.
To put a finer pint on it, these are deaths performed by the governments ON THEIR OWN CITIZENS AND SUBJECTS.
>”...this Court’s interpretation of the Constitution...”
Well, there’s your 1st hint. Maybe the Court should READ and adhere to the F* thing. We don’t need another @sshole, I mean interpretation\opinion, of plain English.
Yes, Due Process is just yet another victim of govt run amok. Glad someone had the gumption to point out the Emperor has no clothes; I didn’t expect much from the 4 big-govt justices.
>
Sue to get your own money back? The case was originally dismissed with a “no standing”ruling. No standing for your own assets???
>
“Own assets”?? The case was ‘The People vs. $17500’. No where did the names of those suing can up in THAT case; hence, no ‘standing’.
See, Leftist logic is easy /s
And, since A.F. has had a track-record, contrary to it being contrary to the Constitutions, it has ‘precedent’. That makes it doubly-legally good, y’know? No need to go back further than the initial ‘law’...
I don’t see how “ civil asset forfeiture” in cases like this where there isn’t even a conviction of the party to which it belongs is comparable with the 5th amedment.
Is that not a explicit example of being deprived of property without due process of law?
Or for that matter an example of the 2nd clause of private property being taken for public use without just compensation?
Maybe it is States that don’t have such a Constitutional restriction doing it. But Civil Asset Forfeiture laws on the federal level are explicitly forbidden by the U.S. Constitution. Only upon conviction of the party owning the property can you claim take it for public use.
5th amendment:
“nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.”
Three or four years ago, IIRC. The world would be a poorer place without his having been in it. He was a true rarity: an honest researcher in the field of Political Science.
The world would be a poorer place without his having been in it. He was a true rarity: an honest researcher in the field of Political Science.
___________________________
True, his book Death by Government opened my eyes in a way no other book did.
That makes sense - thanks for the info.
Mao, had them both beat, in terms of numbers. And Pol Pot would bet them all, if it were on a percentage basis. By the way, Hitler killed 7 million non-Jews.
Nope. Really? Some guy comes here illegally and works his ass off.... then send him home. But take his money too? Nope. I would never agree to that.
Hold ur horses.....Stalin was supported by the west (allies) before, during, AND after WWII!
Outlaw police from getting one dime. All seized asserts go to paying down national or state debt and only after conviction of a crime that proves the assets came from criminal acts.
So you like open borders.
Thinking the flight was about to be highjacked, I turned-in a nervous passenger to the pilot, via flight attendants.
Atlanta police found $100,000 taped to his body.
In Federal court, flight attendants testified that a drug transaction had occurred in the rear of the plane. I’d also testified. The CRIMINAL defense attornies’ questions revolved around the fact that
I was NOT an expert in drug transactions.
The money was returned—less legal fees— to the citizen of Columbia.
:-/
Sorry, but my Smartphone hides the “post” button after a few sentences.
This ‘asset forfeiture’ law legalizes armed robbery on the side of the road and any member of law enforcement who steals money from innocent people deserves what happens to them when people defend themselves from armed robbery.
The law be damned: it’s robbery under color of authority and if someone fights back against it then good for them.
This among other rulings is why he is my favorite Justice.
:)
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.