You are in favor of states rights, aren't you? That the people of each state determine how they want to live?
It just seems to me that you're kinda, you know, butting in on their affairs? Were you also in favor of butting in on Texas law to overturn their sodomy laws?
Hmmmm. I always figured you for a real 10th amendment person. But you think the federal government (we) should step in and overturn their asset forfeiture laws?
You are the person who explained the doctrine of incorporation to me -- from your post(http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-backroom/1015559/posts?page=31#31):
The basic liberties of the Bill of Rights did not become applicable to the states until after the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment. Among other things, the Fourteenth Amendment prohibited the states from depriving "any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law." Through a tortuous, decades-long process, the Court eventually adopted the view that certain fundamental liberties in the Bill of Rights could be incorporated through the due process clause and turned into limits against the power of the states also.
In separate decisions, the right of free speech, the right to freely exercise one's religion, the right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures, and so on, were made applicable to the states by the Justices. The Second Amendment right to bear arms, however, has never been incorporated by the Court into the Fourteenth Amendment. The result is that today the Second Amendment, whatever it may mean, operates to restrict only the power of the federal government. The states remain unfettered by the Amendment's limitations. They remain essentially free to regulate arms and the right to bear them as they choose, in the absence of strictures in their own state constitutions and laws." -- time.com
In short, the fourth amendment prohibitions against unreasonable search and seizure, and fifth amendment due process requirements apply to the states as well as the feds. This is entirely consistent with amendment 10: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.
Since sodomy (and drug law, for that matter) are not delegated to the US by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, these issues should belong to the states. Although I agree that people should be able to engage in consensual sexual activity in the privacy of their own homes, I believe this should be decided by state legislatures rather than federal judicial fiat.
So, back to the question: do you consider it Constitutional for the government to hold property of someone who has been found not guilty in a court of law to all criminal charges against him?