Comment by aqme28 4 days ago
It's the explanation, but it still makes no sense to me. "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures..."
You really have to twist that in bizarre ways to come out saying "yeah but we can seize that guy's money."
The bill of rights applies to criminal law. Civil asset forfeiture falls under 'civil' law (hence the name) which works under very different rules (for example the standard for a finding of guilt in much lower for civil law than criminal). The US Justice system routinely bypasses controls/limits/restrictions placed on it by moving things over to the 'civil law' side.
The idea that the government can invoke civil law outside of contract disputes or similar matters is inherently problematic due to the lower burden of proof.
It’s only appropriate when any private citizen could do the same thing. IE: The Army suing a supplier for supplying them with a defective bullets is they same thing anyone who buys large quantities of bullets could do, but people would need to voluntarily enter into such relationships before this applies.
That bill of rights does not exclusively deal with criminal law. At least the first and fifth amendments deal partially with civil law. The seventh amendment exclusively relates to civil law.
Nah, it's not. Things sometimes needs to be spelled out so that there's ZERO wiggle room. That's why the universal declaration of human rights had to be so extensive and verbose. There are people that will justify a missing comma as their actions being allowed by the constitution.
The entire point of enumerating rights in a founding document is that it will be at odds with future interests.
Of course someone in power is going to try and twist the meaning to their own gain.
That inevitable desire is literally why the rights needed to be included in the first place.
It's obviously not, or you wouldn't find so many people (successfully!) arguing against your interpretation.
That's one of the problems with a codified constitution that's as ossified as the one in the US: the language used gets interpreted, and so the meaning of the language depends on the interpretations favoured by whoever's currently holding the reins.
It doesn't make sense because it's insane mental gymnastics being used to justify obviously unconstitutional conduct. The bill of rights is very, very, clear on this.