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

401–410 of 457 posts

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

#401

Post by grappler »

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…

Sounds like they made a very broad ruling (that the 8th Amendment does apply to the states) and left the narrow rulings (about the specifics of the case) to other courts.

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

#402

Post by dragonwriter »

rplst8 wrote: post #381
xxpor wrote: post #295

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>The courts aren’t there to set law, that is for the legislature I hate this meme. This is explicitly not true in the American legal system, as well as similar systems evolved from the British one. Case law is just as much part of the law as statutes are. This is the fundamental difference between common law systems and civil law systems. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_law#Common_law_legal_sy...

Isn't the difference here that Federal courts can't create law, only rule on constitutional matters. Common law (state and local courts) can create "laws". There are some exceptions to this where federal laws have likely overreached the framers intentions, and then federal courts had to rule on a matter pertaining to that law.

> Isn't the difference here that Federal courts can't create law, only rule on constitutional matters.

Federal courts aren't limited to ruling on Constitutional issues—cases that are purely state law can be in federal court jurisdiction, e.g., because of diversity of citizenship of the parties, and any federal law issue, not just an issue of the Constitution, also qualifies a case for federal court; and they create law just like any other courts (only with broader geographical impact, because it's federal law.)

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

#403

Post by dragonwriter »

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.

> 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?

No, in addition to the clause which directly prohibits religious tests, there is no clause which does anything like that; the required oath or affirmation is:

“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”

No supreme being required or even directly relevant. You may be confusing the Presidency with Alcoholics Anonymous, which requires acknowledging a “higher power”.

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

#404

Post by orblivion »

orblivion wrote: post #197
gowld wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This case was about criminal forfeiture, not civil forfeiture. The aggrieved was convicted of crime, and the forfeiture was a fine for that. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_forfeiture_in_the_United_States#Civil_versus_criminal_forfeiture

Hmm, seems like the 8th amendment doesn't apply to civil forfeiture at all, and this ruling would do nothing for it. Civil I guess sounds like a 4th amendment case. Is that about right? EDIT: Also you should tell the New York Times. "Criminal forfeiture" does not appear in the article, though "civil forfeiture" does.

Yeah I keep reading "civil" mentioned in news articles. I even say a lawyer on a news video talking about how this applies to civil forfeiture cases.

What you're saying makes sense, but I'm not seeing it reflected in any of these sources, so I'm doubtful now.

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

#406

Post by rtkwe »

phonon wrote: post #200
rtkwe wrote: post #183

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So from the sound of that it seems like civil asset forfeiture without charges filed or judgments rendered against a person should be dead in the water legally right? Because under this ruling any forfeiture under §§ 881(a) would be considered a punishment and there's a right to due process before punishment correct?

https://casetext.com/case/von-hofe-v-us :-) Claimants Harold and Kathleen von Hofe appeal from a civil judgment ordering the forfeiture of their home, 32 Medley Lane. They contend the forfeiture violates the Excessive Fines Clause of the Eighth Amendment, which "limits the government's power to extract payments, whether in cash or in kind, as punishment for some offense." Austin v. United States, 509 U.S. 602, 609-10…

This case seems to still have charges filed against the people having their assets seized and if I understand Alford plea kind of plead guilty but not really (Alford plea seems to be 'fine I'll go to jail but I'm innocent).

On a related note this is one of the things that annoys me about trying to talk about legal things on the internet, often people just quote cases directly without saying anything about what it actually means! Then to try to understand what is trying to be said I have to spend 20 minutes looking up various legal jargon to try to piece together what's being said in the case. I understand that pretty much everything is built on case history in the legal world but just quoting cases is tough to parse.

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

#407

Post by dllthomas »

dragonwriter wrote: post #403
mikekchar wrote: post #291

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> 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? No, in addition to the clause which directly prohibits religious tests, there is no clause which does anything like that; the required oath or affirmation is: “I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office…

> You may be confusing the Presidency with Alcoholics Anonymous

I do that all the time.

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

#408

Post by keko039ndnfm »

keko039ndnfm wrote: post #239
KorematsuFred wrote: post #232

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am from India and Indian courts are nothing but bunch of old men sermonizing everyone else. They often have barely read law, believe in extraordinary processes and completely arbitrary legal doctrines such as "constitutional morality" that compels them to actually ignore the law. Digging deep I realize that this is because most of them will retire at 60 after which they either seek lucrative jobs from their politic…

It’s the same in the US The masses are bought in and ignore it Not one of the judges on the SC questions the correctness of the process They just regurgitate the things they’ve been taught and studied There is no more outside the box consideration of the system here than there is in India And this forum is just as emotionally blind to it as all the others

https://www.argusleader.com/story/news/politics/2019/02/20/s...

Old men sermonizing the masses with little real reason

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

#409

Post by Fellshard »

hannasanarion wrote: post #303
Fellshard wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's even more arbitrary, and won't solve the problem, as the next administration can reintroduce it. It's a temporary patch of the problem, and is technically also an abdication of the executive from their assigned role.

Nobody said it solves the problem. The point is that it helps. Also, "I am not going to use an unjust power that I have" is hardly an abdication of their role, it's just a choice made using the power of the office.

The problem is that it's /not/ a power they have, and ought to be shut down by the judicial ASAP. The only reason it's not is because it's not been prosecuted for prior administrations, and has become a pattern of laxity, allowing the legislative to claim to wash their hands of culpability when a law they stand for in public isn't acted on in private.

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

#410

Post by jcranberry »

wallace_f wrote: post #369
tomatotomato37 wrote: post #314

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's such a tragedy how much the actions of the SC are generalized and sound-bited by politicians and the media. If you go out and read the arguments they all give they are really quite elegant, especially when compared with the sheer stupidity of some of the debates that take place a block over

Yea... But I think this comment puts them in better light than perhaps is deserved. There are arguments SCOTUS are not defenders of the constitution. Look at Clarence Thomas's dissent on Gonzalez vs Raich, where somehow SCOTUS defended the Fed's oppressing someone for growing their own medical marijuana... In a state with legal medical marijuana. There is no constitutional basis for that. Using the Commerce Clause is…

There's a quote right in the Wikipedia article which talks about the practical reasoning and historical basis for the decision:

> Even respondents acknowledge the existence of an illicit market in marijuana; indeed, Raich has personally participated in that market, and Monson expresses a willingness to do so in the future. More concretely, one concern prompting inclusion of wheat grown for home consumption in the 1938 Act was that rising market prices could draw such wheat into the interstate market, resulting in lower market prices. Wickard, 317 U.S., at 128. The parallel concern making it appropriate to include marijuana grown for home consumption in the CSA is the likelihood that the high demand in the interstate market will draw such marijuana into that market. While the diversion of homegrown wheat tended to frustrate the federal interest in stabilizing prices by regulating the volume of commercial transactions in the interstate market, the diversion of homegrown marijuana tends to frustrate the federal interest in eliminating commercial transactions in the interstate market in their entirety. In both cases, the regulation is squarely within Congress' commerce power because production of the commodity meant for home consumption, be it wheat or marijuana, has a substantial effect on supply and demand in the national market for that commodity.

Post reply on HN