Uncensored2008
Libertarian Radical
Verify in what way? From his notes or recollection?
It's interesting that if one robs a store, they are not simply imprisoned, only allowed a trial and judicial review if they should petition for it.
Turns out she has, but the Stasi tend to move without respect for pending cases.
But the more pertinent question is her husband.
Would you agree that if a wife is stopped for DUI, that the Stasi can take two cars registered to the husband, without compensation or judicial review?
Would you agree that such an act would be constitutional?
I may think that fire is hot.
I THINK this is unconstitutional because it is.
{ nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation. }
Our founding fathers had a differing view of laws. They wrote so that all law would be understandable by the layman, by the commoner. The problem facing the left is that constitutional law is brief, concise and clear. There is little room for obfuscation and manipulation. Current law, such as Obama's fascist care, is written with contradiction and absurd volumes of verbiage, thus leaving rulers to "interpret" whatever they please. But this is not the case with the constitution.
{ nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation. }
means only that people will not be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation. There is no room to twist and turn and manipulate. Current law is created to frustrate the populace, but at the founding of this nation, it was created to establish the laws that all were to be bound by.
If the democrats wrote the 5th amendment - not that they ever would, but IF they had, it would be 1,500 pages in length with exemptions for Hollywood, Blue Cross, and well connected donors.
I can thank the utter disregard for the constitution for that.
Irrelevant to the current case. The husband was not accused or arrested for anything. His property was stolen PURELY based on his relationship to a person accused.
This is precisely the kind of tyranny that the Bill of Rights was written to protect against.
Asset forfeiture has no bearing on this case. There is no claim that the guns were illegal, nor that a criminal enterprise existed.
California is a far left enclave, and as such, has complete contempt for civil rights and the United States Constitution.
They operate with contempt for the law of the land. California operates under the same legal principle as North Korea and Cuba.
