Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

U.S. Supreme Court Puts Limits on Police Power to Seize Private Property

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

221–230 of 457 posts

Re: U.S. Supreme Court Puts Limits on Police Power to Seize Private Property

#221

Post by dragonwriter »

School-Cotton wrote: post #176
jhayward wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Note also that corporations are 'people' but not 'citizens' and would likewise be disenfranchised from the protections provided by the bill of rights and the constitution when it came to state law. edit: there seems to be some lawyering about the difference between the meaning of 'people' and 'persons' that I do not understand at this time.

Corporations are not people, and the Supreme Court has never found that they are -- this soundbite is a misunderstanding of Citizens United v. FEC .

> Corporations are not people,

Corporations are exactly didtinxt legal persons and that's the central point of incorporation.

> the Supreme Court has never found that they are

It has, in fact, found that they are legally persons and that is the whole point of corporations (though the first cases to do so use the term “individuality” for what a modern writer might term “personhood”.) Key early cases include Trustees of Dartmouth College v. Woodward, 17 U.S. 518 (1819); Society for the Propagation of the Gospel in Foreign Parts v. Town of Pawlet 21 U.S. 464 (1823); and Providence Bank v. Billings, 29 U.S. 514 (1830).

But, beyond these early cases using language that might be mistaken by a modern reader, in Pembina Consolidated Silver Mining Co. v. Pennsylvania, 125 U.S. 181 (1888), the court, in addressing the 14th amendment, found that “[u]nder the designation of ‘person’ there is no doubt that a private corporation is included.”

Re: U.S. Supreme Court Puts Limits on Police Power to Seize Private Property

#222

Post by mehrdadn »

School-Cotton wrote: post #218
mehrdadn wrote: post #206

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I meant beyond the obvious right to vote and be in the country etc.

Well, I'm not sure what you consider obvious or not, but those are the most important ones. From Wikipedia, some other examples are the right to be considered for federal employment (most Federal Government jobs being closed to non-citizens), access to US consular officials if arrested abroad, and exemption from certain real estate taxes[1]. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_Investment_in_Real_Pro...

I guess when I talked about rights I was really thinking about protections from the government rather than about liberties or privileges like serving in or voting for the government -- like the one against excessive fines that was mentioned.

Re: U.S. Supreme Court Puts Limits on Police Power to Seize Private Property

#223

Post by thaumasiotes »

da_chicken wrote: post #185
School-Cotton wrote: post #171

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think in forma pauperis is the phrase you're looking for (but its literal meaning isn't what you suggest).

That is it, yes.

For reference, in forma pauperis means "in the shape of a poor man"; pockets aren't mentioned. As far as I'm aware, the Romans didn't have pockets and so there would be no way to express the concept in Latin.

Re: U.S. Supreme Court Puts Limits on Police Power to Seize Private Property

#224

Post by thatoneuser »

sathackr wrote: post #205
KorematsuFred wrote: post #193

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I find this very remarkable about American legal system. The supreme court could have technically showed some bleeding heart by not showing judicial restraint. Instead they just did their job. Americans must thank this judicial culture.

It's a welcome check on the Executive and Legislative branches. Anyone can become President, and anyone can become a lawmaker. It takes a lifetime of respect to earn a seat on the Supreme Court bench.

People here commenting that the last point isn't valid are ironically demonstrating just how much respect the bench requires.

Thankfully, blind allegations with no substantiation aren't enough to ruin a whole careers worth of earned respect.

Re: U.S. Supreme Court Puts Limits on Police Power to Seize Private Property

#225

Post by thelasthuman »

crooked-v wrote: post #192
User23 wrote: post #165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I hate the notion that citizens don't have privileges, because otherwise citizenship is worthless. Obviously the natural rights of all persons ought to be respected.

Citizens have the most important privilege: the ability to vote.

How important is this privilege if I can maliciously control how you vote?

Now imagine the good we can do with real electoral reform (Democrats idea of repealing citizens United is a meager start, but weak lip service to real reform)

What we have now - First Past The Post Voting - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s7tWHJfhiyo

Range Voting - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e3GFG0sXIig

Single Transferable Vote - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l8XOZJkozfI

Alternative Vote - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Y3jE3B8HsE

Mixed-Member Proportional Representation - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QT0I-sdoSXU

Electoral reform is just step 1, something we can all come together for. Something no one could possibly be against.

How about if I control who can be voted for?

Of course it matters - https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Erph1L_XwVQ

bonus video:

This video will make you angry -https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=rE3j_RHkqJc

Re: U.S. Supreme Court Puts Limits on Police Power to Seize Private Property

#226

Post by writepub »

da_chicken wrote: post #125

The important thing to understand about this case is the background and what the SCotUS actually ruled on. It's actually rather narrow ruling even if it is extremely important. The court exercised judicial restraint here, and made the minimum ruling necessary. Timbs was convicted of possession/sale/whatever, jailed for a year, and fined $1,200. The state confiscated his Range Rover as well. Timbs sued or appealed the…

> Timbs sued or appealed the confiscation by Indiana, which he he could prove he didn't buy with drug money.

Shouldn't the burden of proof of financing lie with the state before property possession is carried out? It is unfair for the defendant to prove the source of funds for his own property

Re: U.S. Supreme Court Puts Limits on Police Power to Seize Private Property

#227

Post by discordance »

"Law enforcement agencies have resisted efforts to curtail civil forfeiture, saying they rely on the proceeds for sorely needed equipment"

Weird weird reasoning... "I don't have the stuff I want, so I should be able to steal the thieves things"

Re: U.S. Supreme Court Puts Limits on Police Power to Seize Private Property

#228

Post by jeffdavis »

da_chicken wrote: post #180
vonmoltke wrote: post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Additionally, a lot of the constitution is actually phrased as limits on the government rather than rights as citizens. This is because the Constitution is supposed to be an enumeration of what the government is allowed to do. The limitations are there to narrow the scope of those enumerated powers. In this context, enumerating most rights of citizens would have been redundant. The enumerated citizen rights were th…

> Unfortunately, Commerce Clause abuse and the effective neutralization of the 10th Amendment has created the opposite situation where the government can do anything it wants as long as it isn't specifically prohibited, and citizens are only guaranteed rights if they are specified. I mean, that's true, but it's also true that it's extremely difficult to get 50 states to jump forward at the same time, particularly whe…

For most issues, there is really no need for all 50 states to act at once. In practice, the federal government exercises it's extraconstitutional authority for all kinds of things which could be done much better at the state level.

For instance, making drugs illegal (accounts for most federal prisoners) and running social welfare programs (accounts for most federal spending).

If something really is an important power the federal government must have (maybe some kinds of environmental regulation powers?), then make an amendment that clearly scopes the boundaries of that new power.

Re: U.S. Supreme Court Puts Limits on Police Power to Seize Private Property

#229

Post by dragonwriter »

stale2002 wrote: post #211
jhayward wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Note also that corporations are 'people' but not 'citizens' and would likewise be disenfranchised from the protections provided by the bill of rights and the constitution when it came to state law. edit: there seems to be some lawyering about the difference between the meaning of 'people' and 'persons' that I do not understand at this time.

> corporations are 'people' A corporation, is, by definition, a group of people, yes. And those people who make up the group have rights that are protected by the constitution. Or in other words, a corporation is the plural form of the word 'person', in many situations.

> A corporation, is, by definition, a group of people, yes.

No, it's not. It is, legally, a single person. It is not a group of people, though one or more other people (all or some of which may also be corporations, governments, or other legal persons that are not natural persons) have authority to direct it as laid out in its charter. But the corporation is not, and is clearly and legally distinct from, any and all those people, individually or in any combination.

Re: U.S. Supreme Court Puts Limits on Police Power to Seize Private Property

#230

Post by Cyclone_ »

jakelazaroff wrote: post #186
Cyclone_ wrote: post #78

I'm not terribly concerned with this particular seizure from the drug dealer the case is about, but glad it sets a precedent for other cases where police may try and abuse power to pick on citizens.

Why not this case, in which police abused their power to pick on a citizen?

Perhaps because it's a citizen who was able to afford the expensive car by profiting off of something illegal?
Post reply on HN