It’s funny that a post I just made on another thread applies here:
I subscribe to a Constitutional originalist philosophy. In other words, when Supreme Court rulings conflict with the clear language of the Constitution, and the clear intent of the Founders as expressed in the Declaration of Independence and the Federalist Papers, I side with the Constitution and the Founders every time.
State seizure of property absent conviction is clearly in opposition to the Founders’ intent — so I’ll go with the Founders.
You mean the Constitution that gives the Supreme Court the last say in interpreting the Constitution.