Replies

Wait a minute. I thought you supported asset forfeiture if it is a result of a criminal (not civil) conviction. So you disagree with the First Congress?

My point there was that your post in which you said they were motivated to seize ships implied that they would have been fine with taking vessels from people who had not been convicted of a crime, as punishment for the said crime. Not only is that not true, but further, they would not even allow it if the person WERE convicted of a crime.

And yes, I do disagree with them on that. I still don't think we should have all the federal crimes that we do, but that's that other thread. But, if someone is convicted of a crime, I don't have a problem in principle with forfeiture of assets as punishment.

"Not only is that not true, but further, they would not even allow it if the person WERE convicted of a crime."

Asset forfeiture as a result of treason is expressly forbidden by Article III, Section 3 of the U.S. Constitution. That's it.

Federal asset forfeiture for all other federal crimes was forbidden only by statute. There's no constitutional protection, simply a law providing one.

That's the way the people felt then. Today, they feel differently. They call that democracy.