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

The FBI Seized This Woman's Life Savings–Without Telling Her Why

reason.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 130 posts

Re: The FBI Seized This Woman's Life Savings–Without Telling Her Why

#121

Post by hiatus »

lupusreal wrote: post #104
hiatus wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The states can't be compelled to enforce federal laws though can they? Isn't that how like sanctuary cities work? Or how weed is legal in some states but illegal federally? States can decline to assist federal law enforcement.

They can if they want to, but can't be compelled to do so. If a state decides that a federal law won't be enforced by them, then it shouldn't be enforced in that state period. Federal law enforcement are worse than the gangsters they were created to fight.

So things like civil rights would depend on the state you're in?

Re: The FBI Seized This Woman's Life Savings–Without Telling Her Why

#122

Post by hiatus »

BirAdam wrote: post #120
hiatus wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The states can't be compelled to enforce federal laws though can they? Isn't that how like sanctuary cities work? Or how weed is legal in some states but illegal federally? States can decline to assist federal law enforcement.

Well, today, they can refuse. Historically, they couldn’t. George Washington was willing to use military force to enforce law.

Could you elaborate a bit on what you mean about George Washington? When did this modern right of refusal come about?

Re: The FBI Seized This Woman's Life Savings–Without Telling Her Why

#123

Post by brabel »

quickthrowman wrote: post #88
brabel wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Law is the codification of acceptable behavior. Good luck lobbying the town to change the speed limit. They don't care what you think about the limit, if you drive past that speed you'll have to pay. And just to rant a bit: as someone who lives on a too-straight street (but very local and with pedestrians, including, children, walking on often) where dickheads constantly drive well past the limit because they proba…

The problem is with the road, not the drivers. My city has re-engineered many roads that used to have four lanes into two lane roads with a middle left turn lane along with roundabouts or curbs that ‘narrow’ the road at intersections which makes drivers slow down. Roads where traffic used to move at 45 MPH now moves at 30 MPH. Go to city council meetings and demand that the road is re-engineered instead of blaming dr…

The road has speed bumpers already. Most streets in my area have a narrow section through which only one car can pass, so drivers going in either direction have to negotiate going through, but my street doesn't. So, drivers know very well they should keep the speed down, but unfortunately outside of making it physically impossible to go faster, people just can't help themselves doing it. It's very telling of human nature. I do think we need to blame those drivers going over anyway. Yes, people should be held accountable and be counted on fucking holding back their foot when on a small, narrow local street. This discourse that it's not the driver's fault is incredibly dishonest. Yes it is.

Re: The FBI Seized This Woman's Life Savings–Without Telling Her Why

#124

Post by devilbunny »

inglor_cz wrote: post #40
devilbunny wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Then it wasn’t a speed trap. Just running radar is not a speed trap, it’s enforcement. Speed traps are as described by others: abrupt, significant changes in speed limit with minimal warning and poorly-visible signage. Look up the story of Waldo, Florida, which for years and years did this on US 301. The town lies on the main route between Gainesville, location of the University of Florida, and Jacksonville, where it…

Large jumps should be plainly illegal, and bad visibility of signage should be a defense in the court. This has to be legislated at the state level, though, or the municipalities will go wild in their policing for profit.

These always slide by because the cost of defending yourself in court is enormous even if you have a completely simple case that anyone with a modicum of intelligence could handle. You can’t do it remotely.

Re: The FBI Seized This Woman's Life Savings–Without Telling Her Why

#125

Post by BirAdam »

hiatus wrote: post #122
BirAdam wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, today, they can refuse. Historically, they couldn’t. George Washington was willing to use military force to enforce law.

Could you elaborate a bit on what you mean about George Washington? When did this modern right of refusal come about?

According to the Constitution and precedence, federal laws are always the law of the land. States are supposed to need to prove that federal laws is unconstitutional, and they then wouldn’t be required to follow a federal law. Of course, a state could simply not enforce a federal law, but this is where the federal government can intervene. In the case of Washington, he used the army to enforce taxes on whiskey in Pennsylvania. Of course, he may not have been the biggest fan of using military force for policing, as he also established the US Marshals, but he was willing to use military force.

Regarding states ignoring federal laws, the first I know of resulted in New York v. United States in 1992 where the Court ruled that congress couldn’t require states to enact waste disposal regulations. In more recent history, Oklahoma voted to nullify the Affordable Care Act in 2013. The biggest shift, however, was in marijuana legalization across the country. According to the federal government, pot is illegal. States have explicitly made laws stating the opposite. I can find nothing else quite like it in US history. This is different from previous cases where the states challenged a law on legal grounds. Here, they just ignored the federal government entirely.

Re: The FBI Seized This Woman's Life Savings–Without Telling Her Why

#126

Post by spwa4 »

sidewndr46 wrote: post #71
spwa4 wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The whole of youth protection services and law enforcement for an entire state got caught running such a racket, imprisoning kids for money from the state, with the judges receiving kickbacks. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kids_for_cash_scandal Needless to say, although the criminal records for these kids got expunged (after 15 years, WAY too late and didn't mean anything anymore, and already had caused maximum damag…

Let me remind you that the judge in that scandal is a free man thanks to the President of the United States.

In my opinion the state, and the republican government that installed this atrocity is responsible, and voting themselves out of even the minimal normal restitution payment had they done this to adults are the people in the center of that scandal, and of course voting their party members free from criminal persecution.

And this is pretty much the entire republican party of Pennsylvania. Still. There's hardly any young (even if you define young as 40 or 50) people in, frankly, either party.

Re: The FBI Seized This Woman's Life Savings–Without Telling Her Why

#127

Post by Gibbon1 »

ajb wrote: post #6

Seizures allowed to be kept by the organisation doing the seizing is a terrible incentive. In other countries, seizures go to general revenue, which means that the incentive to do it is diluted enormously. This is especially a problem with small police forces, or small polities where fines become a large proportion of revenue. You'd think that for the FBI the incentive would be diluted, given how huge they are, but m…

For the US I think all fines and seized money should go to the social security administration.

Re: The FBI Seized This Woman's Life Savings–Without Telling Her Why

#129

Post by hiatus »

BirAdam wrote: post #125
hiatus wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Could you elaborate a bit on what you mean about George Washington? When did this modern right of refusal come about?

According to the Constitution and precedence, federal laws are always the law of the land. States are supposed to need to prove that federal laws is unconstitutional, and they then wouldn’t be required to follow a federal law. Of course, a state could simply not enforce a federal law, but this is where the federal government can intervene. In the case of Washington, he used the army to enforce taxes on whiskey in Pen…

You made my point for me. States were always free to refuse to enforce federal law, and the federal government needed an enforcement arm at least for that case, be it the military, marshals, or DEA.

Re: The FBI Seized This Woman's Life Savings–Without Telling Her Why

#130

Post by sidewndr46 »

spwa4 wrote: post #126
sidewndr46 wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Let me remind you that the judge in that scandal is a free man thanks to the President of the United States.

In my opinion the state, and the republican government that installed this atrocity is responsible, and voting themselves out of even the minimal normal restitution payment had they done this to adults are the people in the center of that scandal, and of course voting their party members free from criminal persecution. And this is pretty much the entire republican party of Pennsylvania. Still. There's hardly any youn…

The pardon was granted by a Democratic president. This isn't a partisan issue. It's legalized corruption
Post reply on HN