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

351–360 of 457 posts

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

#351

Post by lostapathy »

dsfyu404ed wrote: post #345
lostapathy wrote: post #178

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Keep in mind that the 2nd amendment hasn't even been incorporated against the states for 10 years yet (McDonald v Chicago). So while the right has been incorporated, the court has yet to really rule on the scope of what that means. Just 10 years ago, it wasn't clear that you as an individual actually had that right, as it pertains to state restrictions - things have certainly improved. Edit: I guess my original point…

I suspect that nothing will change until the court rules that some form of scrutiny stricter than the status quo needs to be applied before curtailing the 2nd before that ruling will have any teeth. Incorporation means nothing without strict or intermediate scrutiny because states can just do whatever they want in the name of some nebulous concept like "public safety".

There are numerous cases in lower courts attempting just that!

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

#353

Post by gamblor956 »

da_chicken wrote: post #310
keko039ndnfm wrote: post #259

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They question the correctness of decisions made by the US judiciary system from inside the system They decide if the inside of the box is working correctly in an undemocratic fashion, based upon their biases Not the correctness of the US judiciary system itself Thomas Jefferson advocated for a system that would allow future generations to reasses it’s Constitution and laws, and adjust as necessary We got James Madiso…

>They question the correctness of decisions made by the US judiciary system from inside the system > They decide if the inside of the box is working correctly in an undemocratic fashion, based upon their biases > Not the correctness of the US judiciary system itself It's literally their job to do work within the system. The SCotUS is explicitly restricted to interpreting the laws that already exist and were passed by…

SCOTUS can't create new legislation. But in a common law system like the US, where court decisions are part of the legal framework, simply issuing a court ruling can result in the creation of new "law."

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

#354

Post by gamblor956 »

mikekchar wrote: post #291
alasdair_ wrote: post #277

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Anyone can become President Somewhat irritatingly, I (and a large number of other American Citizens) cannot ever become president because we were not citizens at birth.

Is there not also a weird clause where you have to agree in the existence of a supreme being (it can be any supreme being, I think) because otherwise you can't take the oath of office? I suppose an atheist is very unlikely to become president of the US any time soon, but I always wondered what would happen if one did get voted in.

No. Several presidents were sworn in using documents like the Constitution and the Magna Carta instead of the Bible.

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

#355

Post by gamblor956 »

AnimalMuppet wrote: post #258
gamblor956 wrote: post #219

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is because the Constitution is supposed to be an enumeration of what the government is allowed to do. This is simply not true. The Founders lived through the Articles of Confederation, in which the founding document explicitly enumerated the only powers the government would have. The Constitution was an explicit rejection of that philosophy, and was intended to create a government with broad powers. The point of…

Can you provide some evidence for your last paragraph?

The Sedition Act, passed by the First Congress (consisting of many members of the Constitutional Convention), for starters, which was a huge restriction on free speech.

The multiple attempts by former CC members to pass anti-slavery legislation in Congress in the many decades leading up to the Civil War.

There are a number of other examples, well covered by a number of primary and secondary sources.

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

#356

Post by gamblor956 »

int_19h wrote: post #279
gamblor956 wrote: post #219

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is because the Constitution is supposed to be an enumeration of what the government is allowed to do. This is simply not true. The Founders lived through the Articles of Confederation, in which the founding document explicitly enumerated the only powers the government would have. The Constitution was an explicit rejection of that philosophy, and was intended to create a government with broad powers. The point of…

That's only true if you use the definition of "broad powers" that was used back when the Constitution was written - which is very different from what it is today. And all of those broad powers they wanted the government to have, were explicitly written into the text of the Constitution. Sometimes it was deliberately vague, like the Commerce Clause (although if you showed our modern jurisprudence on that to people who…

The First Congress passed the Sedition Act, which was an extremely broad set of laws that would have essentially nullified the First Amendment. The first several Congresses passed extremely broad laws regulating commerce that were ultimately narrowed by the courts. This all despite having numerous members of the Constitutional Convention among their ranks.

It's pretty clear from the laws the First and Second Congress passed that they had an even broader definition of "broad powers" than we do today. (And by the way, the Federal Papers have no legal authority in US law. They're interesting from a historical perspective because they documents an attempt by one politician to sway the opinion of the general public, but they don't form any part of the corpus of American jurisprudence.)

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

#357

Post by gamblor956 »

GeekyBear wrote: post #57
colmmacc wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As a permanent resident who lives in the US, the idea that basic protections of law should only apply to citizens is terrifying. It's not the same outcome at all. Due process is afforded to "persons".

Quite recently, we have had two Presidents claim that non-citizens had no right to challenge their imprisonment by the United States (Bush in Gitmo and Obama on Bagram AFB in the Middle East) who ran smack into a Supreme Court that found their actions unconstitutional. The notion that Constitutional protections cannot apply to non-citizens is simply not true, even when applied to non-citizens being held by the US off…

Quite recently, we have had two Presidents claim that non-citizens had no right to challenge their imprisonment by the United States

No, the argument was that foreign terrorists and other non-state enemy combatants were not "subject to the jurisdiction" of the US legal system (because they weren't on US soil when captured, and as non-state combatants that weren't covered by any treaties to which the US was a party) and thus also not afforded its protections. However, as a matter of international law, a country generally has legal jurisdiction over any person physically present in the country, whether present legally or otherwise, excepting specific diplomatic personnel (as defined by local law or treaty).

This was the reason for holding them indefinitely in an military facility located in another country. However, under US law, military facilities are considered US soil, and so persons being held in US military facilities are subject to the jurisdiction (and protection) of the US legal system.

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

#358

Post by ec109685 »

gumby wrote: post #327
ec109685 wrote: post #311

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What would the point of suing the entity for punitive damages if you didn't see any of the money?

You’re suing for actual damages, for which you should receive restitution

No, you are suing for both. So removing the potential punitive will lower the incentive to sue. Especially for class action law suits.

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

#359

Post by gamblor956 »

vinceguidry wrote: post #130
GeekyBear wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Quite recently, we have had two Presidents claim that non-citizens had no right to challenge their imprisonment by the United States (Bush in Gitmo and Obama on Bagram AFB in the Middle East) who ran smack into a Supreme Court that found their actions unconstitutional. The notion that Constitutional protections cannot apply to non-citizens is simply not true, even when applied to non-citizens being held by the US off…

In the case of non-citizens being held outside of any US jurisdiction, what court has standing to rule? Where would I file a case if I had one? This reminds me a bit of the Roman concept of the pomerium. Anything outside of the arbitrary line deciding what was Rome and what wasn't, was "anything goes."

Nobody. But US military facilities are considered US soil and thus US jurisdiction.

In the SCOTUS rulings on Guantanamo, SCOTUS went further and stated that they would have ruled the same way if it had been a CIA facility instead of a military facility, so long as Cuba had granted the CIA permission to exclusively use the land for its own purposes.

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

#360

Post by [deleted] »

sbov wrote: post #65
mikeyouse wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Abortion. And immigration. "This may seem like a minor niggling point. It's not. The Court's recognition of a right to abortion has been rooted in the Due Process Clause. Thomas & Gorsuch's concurrences document their opposition to grounding substantive rights in that corner of the 14th am." https://twitter.com/stevenmazie/status/1098242972162768901 "Thomas and Gorsuch announce that they would incorporate Bill of Rig…

Wouldn't this completely screw over corporations? Or do we have some other mechanisms that will continue to protect them from these abuses them but not other types of "persons"?

[deleted]
Post reply on HN