SCOTUS strongly rebukes Indiana forfeiture.

[KellyinAvon]

If you are at the Board of Directors meeting this Saturday at Oaken Barrel Brewing Co., I will buy you a civil asset forfeiture beer. I will seize the money from rhino and then buy you a beer.

Sounds good!! My only question is, “Is Civil Asset Forfeiture an ale or a lager??”

 

[T.Lex]

Sounds good!! My only question is, “Is Civil Asset Forfeiture an ale or a lager??”

I think its an amber. It looks tempting, but is ultimately soulless, drains your bank account, and leaves you wondering what the heck you were thinking.

 

[SwikLS]

It just seems odd to think of him advocating some sort of anti-anti-constitutionalist program. That is, I see him more as standing up for the constitution, period.

Correct, anti-anti-constitutionalist would by definition be a constitutionalist.

Rhetorically, there is a movement among progressives to use historic and contextual arguments about the constitution to promote their own political agenda, but I think that's perfectly legitimate.

and that would be my definition of judicial activism which I do not find legit.

The constitution (and almost all the amendments) was an exercise in progressive governing in its time. It departed from the traditional forms of government, so there will be part of that legacy that remains.

There was a great PBS documentary I watched a couple years ago on Prohibition and what led up to it, and I saw a lot of parallels there with today's left. Also, one of my bug-a-boos is the 17th Am. I think we should go back to the state legislatures choosing their state's senator and not popular election and that could and should be done through an Article 5 Convention of States.

All sides should promote a greater understanding of the actual constitution, not the individual interpretation of what we think the constitution says. IMHO.

Agreed, but for one side, those 2 notions coincide while for the other side, the constitution is a "living breathing document".

 

[T.Lex]

Also, one of my bug-a-boos is the 17th Am. I think we should go back to the state legislatures choosing their state's senator and not popular election ...

I was on that bandwagon back when it was just a bandcart.

Well, I'm ok with a state executive choosing the senator, too. A state-oriented process. The popular vote election of senators has worked great mischief over the years.

 

[SwikLS]

I was on that bandwagon back when it was just a bandcart.

Well, I'm ok with a state executive choosing the senator, too. A state-oriented process. The popular vote election of senators has worked great mischief over the years.

My reason for it is because our system was modeled on the British Parliamentary system. In Britain they have an upper class house and lower class house. Well in America we didn't have upper and lower classes. So the founders saw that the state governments and those that administer them are that upper class equivalent.

Now the problem that gave rise to going to popular election was that some states would get dead locked on choosing their senator. Well the answer shouldn't have been a popular election for all but rather hold a special election (popular election) for only those states that were dead locked. That would've been a much more reasonable solution.

And I think if that had been done we wouldn't have seen the rise in the welfare state and entitlement mentality (along with probably a lot of things like gun control) that we now have because legislation that promoted such things would've had a much more difficult time passing through the Senate. Which I think was by design.

 

[KellyinAvon]

I think its an amber. It looks tempting, but is ultimately soulless, drains your bank account, and leaves you wondering what the heck you were thinking.

Taxman Brewing really needs to come out with this one.

 

[PhxCollier]

So a non lawyer question - do you think the forfeiture would have been legal had it not exceeded the $10,000 maximum fine? Even though the fine was never levied?

 

[T.Lex]

So a non lawyer question - do you think the forfeiture would have been legal had it not exceeded the $10,000 maximum fine? Even though the fine was never levied?

Probably.

That would've made it a much tougher case for Timbs.

 

[historian]

I was on that bandwagon back when it was just a bandcart.

Well, I'm ok with a state executive choosing the senator, too. A state-oriented process. The popular vote election of senators has worked great mischief over the years.

Heck, that wagon got so crowded lately I jumped off of it and want to repeal the 12th.