Civil Forfeiture laws under attack even in conservative state

[Norm]

"without just compensation" was omitted, as if they can simply take your property for nothing.

[RS]

"without just compensation" was omitted, as if they can simply take your property for nothing.

What does just compensation have to do with bankroll seizure?

[moo321]

"without just compensation" was omitted, as if they can simply take your property for nothing.

They can. It's civil forfeiture, not an eminent domain taking (which requires compensation, Kelo v. New London).

[Norm]

I apologize if my responses tend to be a bit snippy lately. I’m swamped. Let me explain.

There has been a tendency over the last decade to post abbreviated bits of the U.S. Constitution, in particular the Bill of Rights, leaving out pertinent phrases. These snippets may be all that is needed for a particular argument. But, they are read by others, and then re-quoted to justify other arguments in a manner that may claim non-existent rights. So, if you post: “5th amendment clearly states that no one will be deprived of their property without due process of law.”, period, stop, and leave out the end of the sentence; you are suggesting that eminent domain is unconstitutional. When, clearly it is constitutional.

Now, civil forfeiture without due process is, IMO, clearly unconstitutional and a serious crime against citizens. I just think that the Bill of Rights was quite well written and shouldn’t be abbreviated as that leads to all kinds of nutcases saying that they have the right to do pretty much anything. Look at ongoing SovCit cases.

[ZeeBabar]

(ADMIN Edit: Much as I agree with your link -- it is far too political.)