Posted on 02/20/2019 10:16:32 AM PST by NRx
WASHINGTON — Siding with a small time drug offender in Indiana whose $42,000 Land Rover was seized by law enforcement officials, the Supreme Court on Wednesday ruled that the Constitution places limits on civil forfeiture laws that allow states and localities to take and keep private property used to commit crimes.
Civil forfeiture is a popular way to raise revenue, and its use has been the subject of widespread criticism across the political spectrum.
The Supreme Court has ruled that the Eighth Amendment, which bars “excessive fines,” limits the ability of the federal government to seize property. On Wednesday, the court ruled that the clause also applies to the states.
Previously, the Supreme Court had never squarely addressed that question. It had addressed the status of the Excessive Fines Clause, but only in the context of the federal government. The court had, however, previously ruled that most protections under the Bill of Rights apply to the states — or were incorporated against them, in the legal jargon — under the 14th Amendment, one of the post-Civil War amendments.
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, writing for eight justices, said the question was an easy one. “The historical and logical case for concluding that the 14th Amendment incorporates the Excessive Fines Clause is overwhelming,” she wrote.
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
The Fourth Amendment to the Constitution of The United States.
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Wasn’t it 9-0??
Donut-munching POS.
I’m not certain why you are bringing up eminent domain in relation to this case. Or is this sarcasm/joke that I am too feeble to recognize?
Trump’s December 2017 Executive Order may be in site here too. It gave him the ability to seize assets. This may block that.
Finally. Good news.
A little to late in my personal case though...
Technically it was 8-0 with the eight justices all agreeing on the basic rational of the decision. Thomas concurred with the judgement of the court but arrived there by entirely different reasoning. So the judgement was unanimous, but the ruling was 8-0 (1 concurring). It is the majority opinion that will hold the force of Supreme Court precedent.
Giles Corey of the Salem Farms
By Henry Wadsworth Longfellow
https://archive.org/details/gilescoreyofsale00long/page/n2
The outcome was agreed to 9-0, but the official Opinion of the Court was 8-0. Justice Thomas agreed with the outcome but for different reasons.
Has nothing to do with or have any impact on El Chapo
I gave hypothetical aimed at peoples opinions about how much the government can take. What’s your opinion
yes it nullifies that and all such specious reasoning around the eighth amendment.
Beyond obvious that USA ever allow this un-constitutional _law_. Law which violates USConstitution is null and void.
My 80+ year old father was renting apartments in his 4 unit building. At one point I know one apartment was being used for drug dealing. I was always afraid that my father would loose his building in some kind of seizure situation. Now I worry that the eminent domain decision will enable the government to seize a four story row house of mine along with several others that are situated between several apartment buildings now that ED for economic purposes has been approved by the Supremes.
Without proof, which should be easy to produce, I call BS on the whole “Ruthie is Alive” theater.
Not much difference between local governments and ‘This Thing Of Ours’.
Except this ‘Thing’ will keep a neighborhood safe.
I’m not sure.
I do not trust anything from the NYT or NPR. Both have Zero credibility.
At this point, I do not believe her health is as good as either of them say. But suspect she is still breathing and she was reported seen once in public.
However, remember the Hillary double thing during the election? With the ComDems anything is possible. The truth is simply not in them.
I’m not jumping to conclusions.
It is my understanding that RBG appeared in person on the bench. She was in fact physically present.
The fact she was there asks us to infer that her physical condition is not as bad as the speculation suggests.
My view is that she put the world on notice that she ain’t going away soon.
The RBG water remains murky
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.