Supreme Court rules 8th Amendment applies to states

[HereWeGoAgain]

Me personally? I would never travel with large sums of money if I was engaging in a legitimate transaction.
I want a paper trail in those instances.

That may well be true and wise.

However others will still have valid reasons for not wanting a paper trail and for using large sums of cash

I have done so myself and not doe anything illegal.

I simply find that in certain select circumstances it is best to use cash and leave no record

Either way as long as the money is legal tender for all debts public and private the state should be banned from seizing or before one is convicted

I cant conceive of a situation where large sums of money need to be in cash for a transaction.
Maybe you can enlighten me.

Cash transactions with no paper trail are more confidential and discreet.

Let's say for example you are under a legit threat of a law suit. Meaning none has been filed against you but it probably will be by someone.

A paper trail leaves something doe the courts to look at and establish how much money you have and therefore how much they can take.

Cash leaves no such record.

The same might be true for people facing divorce.

Granted this is all a little dishonest as what you are doing is hiding your money from the government. But that would imply that the government should be allowed to know everything about you.

Another reason might be the need to get a transaction accomplished very quickly.

Checks take time to process and credit/ debit cards often charge large fees and banks often have funny restrictions on electronic transfers.

The point is some have found they can save a few dollars and get business done faster but laying cash.

So when you're doing something nefarious or underhanded.

You're actually sitting here telling us monetary currency is "nefarious or underhanded"?

I got a C-note here that says you're full of shit.

I dont care if you want to pay cash for big ticket items.
I dont because I want a record and a paper trail if things end up in litigation for whatever reason and I dont like carrying large sums in cash because of the potential of being robbed.
Do I agree with the confiscation of large sums of cash by the police?
Of course not,unless there is ample proof of wrongdoing.

I've just never came across a situation where I felt the need to pay cash simple as that.

 

[Pogo]

That may well be true and wise.

However others will still have valid reasons for not wanting a paper trail and for using large sums of cash

I have done so myself and not doe anything illegal.

I simply find that in certain select circumstances it is best to use cash and leave no record

Either way as long as the money is legal tender for all debts public and private the state should be banned from seizing or before one is convicted

I cant conceive of a situation where large sums of money need to be in cash for a transaction.
Maybe you can enlighten me.

Cash transactions with no paper trail are more confidential and discreet.

Let's say for example you are under a legit threat of a law suit. Meaning none has been filed against you but it probably will be by someone.

A paper trail leaves something doe the courts to look at and establish how much money you have and therefore how much they can take.

Cash leaves no such record.

The same might be true for people facing divorce.

Granted this is all a little dishonest as what you are doing is hiding your money from the government. But that would imply that the government should be allowed to know everything about you.

Another reason might be the need to get a transaction accomplished very quickly.

Checks take time to process and credit/ debit cards often charge large fees and banks often have funny restrictions on electronic transfers.

The point is some have found they can save a few dollars and get business done faster but laying cash.

So when you're doing something nefarious or underhanded.

You're actually sitting here telling us monetary currency is "nefarious or underhanded"?

I got a C-note here that says you're full of shit.

I dont care if you want to pay cash for big ticket items.
I dont because I want a record and a paper trail if things end up in litigation for whatever reason and I dont like carrying large sums in cash because of the potential of being robbed.
Do I agree with the confiscation of large sums of cash by the police?
Of course not,unless there is ample proof of wrongdoing.

I've just never came across a situation where I felt the need to pay cash simple as that.

That's fine, you do what you want.
But don't try to tell me how I have to do it.

When's the last time you were "robbed" of cash? For me it was 1987. Since then 32 years ago I've been ripped off by card transactions more times than I could count.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

I cant conceive of a situation where large sums of money need to be in cash for a transaction.
Maybe you can enlighten me.

Cash transactions with no paper trail are more confidential and discreet.

Let's say for example you are under a legit threat of a law suit. Meaning none has been filed against you but it probably will be by someone.

A paper trail leaves something doe the courts to look at and establish how much money you have and therefore how much they can take.

Cash leaves no such record.

The same might be true for people facing divorce.

Granted this is all a little dishonest as what you are doing is hiding your money from the government. But that would imply that the government should be allowed to know everything about you.

Another reason might be the need to get a transaction accomplished very quickly.

Checks take time to process and credit/ debit cards often charge large fees and banks often have funny restrictions on electronic transfers.

The point is some have found they can save a few dollars and get business done faster but laying cash.

So when you're doing something nefarious or underhanded.

You're actually sitting here telling us monetary currency is "nefarious or underhanded"?

I got a C-note here that says you're full of shit.

I dont care if you want to pay cash for big ticket items.
I dont because I want a record and a paper trail if things end up in litigation for whatever reason and I dont like carrying large sums in cash because of the potential of being robbed.
Do I agree with the confiscation of large sums of cash by the police?
Of course not,unless there is ample proof of wrongdoing.

I've just never came across a situation where I felt the need to pay cash simple as that.

That's fine, you do what you want.
But don't try to tell me how I have to do it.

When's the last time you were "robbed" of cash? For me it was 1987. Since then 32 years ago I've been ripped off by card transactions more times than I could count.

I'm not telling you to do anything.
But with the risk of seizure and the possibility of being robbed or having your vehicle stolen with the cash inside I wont do it.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

I cant conceive of a situation where large sums of money need to be in cash for a transaction.
Maybe you can enlighten me.

Cash transactions with no paper trail are more confidential and discreet.

Let's say for example you are under a legit threat of a law suit. Meaning none has been filed against you but it probably will be by someone.

A paper trail leaves something doe the courts to look at and establish how much money you have and therefore how much they can take.

Cash leaves no such record.

The same might be true for people facing divorce.

Granted this is all a little dishonest as what you are doing is hiding your money from the government. But that would imply that the government should be allowed to know everything about you.

Another reason might be the need to get a transaction accomplished very quickly.

Checks take time to process and credit/ debit cards often charge large fees and banks often have funny restrictions on electronic transfers.

The point is some have found they can save a few dollars and get business done faster but laying cash.

So when you're doing something nefarious or underhanded.

You're actually sitting here telling us monetary currency is "nefarious or underhanded"?

I got a C-note here that says you're full of shit.

I dont care if you want to pay cash for big ticket items.
I dont because I want a record and a paper trail if things end up in litigation for whatever reason and I dont like carrying large sums in cash because of the potential of being robbed.
Do I agree with the confiscation of large sums of cash by the police?
Of course not,unless there is ample proof of wrongdoing.

I've just never came across a situation where I felt the need to pay cash simple as that.

That's fine, you do what you want.
But don't try to tell me how I have to do it.

When's the last time you were "robbed" of cash? For me it was 1987. Since then 32 years ago I've been ripped off by card transactions more times than I could count.

And you get your money back when that happens.
Besides the bank has to inform the gov when you take out 10k or more from your bank account.
If they get no report they're going to wonder where you came up with that cash. Why ask for problems when a simple cashier's check works just as well?

 

[Pogo]

Cash transactions with no paper trail are more confidential and discreet.

Let's say for example you are under a legit threat of a law suit. Meaning none has been filed against you but it probably will be by someone.

A paper trail leaves something doe the courts to look at and establish how much money you have and therefore how much they can take.

Cash leaves no such record.

The same might be true for people facing divorce.

Granted this is all a little dishonest as what you are doing is hiding your money from the government. But that would imply that the government should be allowed to know everything about you.

Another reason might be the need to get a transaction accomplished very quickly.

Checks take time to process and credit/ debit cards often charge large fees and banks often have funny restrictions on electronic transfers.

The point is some have found they can save a few dollars and get business done faster but laying cash.

So when you're doing something nefarious or underhanded.

You're actually sitting here telling us monetary currency is "nefarious or underhanded"?

I got a C-note here that says you're full of shit.

I dont care if you want to pay cash for big ticket items.
I dont because I want a record and a paper trail if things end up in litigation for whatever reason and I dont like carrying large sums in cash because of the potential of being robbed.
Do I agree with the confiscation of large sums of cash by the police?
Of course not,unless there is ample proof of wrongdoing.

I've just never came across a situation where I felt the need to pay cash simple as that.

That's fine, you do what you want.
But don't try to tell me how I have to do it.

When's the last time you were "robbed" of cash? For me it was 1987. Since then 32 years ago I've been ripped off by card transactions more times than I could count.

And you get your money back when that happens.

And in the interim while you're squeezing that ripoff back out of them, which takes days at the least, your bank is hitting you with service charges for bounced checks, or you can't repair your car to get home, or whatever. That's still theft.

Besides the bank has to inform the gov when you take out 10k or more from your bank account.
If they get no report they're going to wonder where you came up with that cash. Why ask for problems when a simple cashier's check works just as well?

Because that takes time. If I want to buy a car and I've got $5000 right here, who needs a middleman?

You seem to be pimping for Statism here. As if whatever you do with your money the gummint has to know about it.
In my world that money belongs to me, and it ain't nobody's bidness how I spend it.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

So when you're doing something nefarious or underhanded.

You're actually sitting here telling us monetary currency is "nefarious or underhanded"?

I got a C-note here that says you're full of shit.

I dont care if you want to pay cash for big ticket items.
I dont because I want a record and a paper trail if things end up in litigation for whatever reason and I dont like carrying large sums in cash because of the potential of being robbed.
Do I agree with the confiscation of large sums of cash by the police?
Of course not,unless there is ample proof of wrongdoing.

I've just never came across a situation where I felt the need to pay cash simple as that.

That's fine, you do what you want.
But don't try to tell me how I have to do it.

When's the last time you were "robbed" of cash? For me it was 1987. Since then 32 years ago I've been ripped off by card transactions more times than I could count.

And you get your money back when that happens.

And in the interim while you're squeezing that ripoff back out of them, which takes days at the least, your bank is hitting you with service charges for bounced checks, or you can't repair your car to get home, or whatever. That's still theft.

Besides the bank has to inform the gov when you take out 10k or more from your bank account.
If they get no report they're going to wonder where you came up with that cash. Why ask for problems when a simple cashier's check works just as well?

Because that takes time. If I want to buy a car and I've got $5000 right here, who needs a middleman?

You seem to be pimping for Statism here. As if whatever you do with your money the gummint has to know about it.
In my world that money belongs to me, and it ain't nobody's bidness how I spend it.

I'm not putting a down payment on a car with 5k.
I'm more than likely trading in my old vehicle for 10 to 15k.

And as I've already said ya dumbfuck!!!
I dont care how you go about your business.
And I've said I dont agree with seizing money unless there is ample evidence of criminal activity.

 

[Pogo]

You're actually sitting here telling us monetary currency is "nefarious or underhanded"?

I got a C-note here that says you're full of shit.

I dont care if you want to pay cash for big ticket items.
I dont because I want a record and a paper trail if things end up in litigation for whatever reason and I dont like carrying large sums in cash because of the potential of being robbed.
Do I agree with the confiscation of large sums of cash by the police?
Of course not,unless there is ample proof of wrongdoing.

I've just never came across a situation where I felt the need to pay cash simple as that.

That's fine, you do what you want.
But don't try to tell me how I have to do it.

When's the last time you were "robbed" of cash? For me it was 1987. Since then 32 years ago I've been ripped off by card transactions more times than I could count.

And you get your money back when that happens.

And in the interim while you're squeezing that ripoff back out of them, which takes days at the least, your bank is hitting you with service charges for bounced checks, or you can't repair your car to get home, or whatever. That's still theft.

Besides the bank has to inform the gov when you take out 10k or more from your bank account.
If they get no report they're going to wonder where you came up with that cash. Why ask for problems when a simple cashier's check works just as well?

Because that takes time. If I want to buy a car and I've got $5000 right here, who needs a middleman?

You seem to be pimping for Statism here. As if whatever you do with your money the gummint has to know about it.
In my world that money belongs to me, and it ain't nobody's bidness how I spend it.

I'm not putting a down payment on a car with 5k.
I'm more than likely trading in my old vehicle for 10 to 15k.

And as I've already said ya dumbfuck!!!
I dont care how you go about your business.
And I've said I dont agree with seizing money unless there is ample evidence of criminal activity.

I wasn't talking "down payment". What do you think, I'm gonna buy a new car and pay for "depreciation"?

Literally never done that, ever.

But if you don't mind that I can take a wad of cash and buy a car, then don't enable this asset-forfeiture shit. Suppose I was on my way to buy that car and I get pulled over and robbed by a uniform. Follow me?

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

I dont care if you want to pay cash for big ticket items.
I dont because I want a record and a paper trail if things end up in litigation for whatever reason and I dont like carrying large sums in cash because of the potential of being robbed.
Do I agree with the confiscation of large sums of cash by the police?
Of course not,unless there is ample proof of wrongdoing.

I've just never came across a situation where I felt the need to pay cash simple as that.

That's fine, you do what you want.
But don't try to tell me how I have to do it.

When's the last time you were "robbed" of cash? For me it was 1987. Since then 32 years ago I've been ripped off by card transactions more times than I could count.

And you get your money back when that happens.

And in the interim while you're squeezing that ripoff back out of them, which takes days at the least, your bank is hitting you with service charges for bounced checks, or you can't repair your car to get home, or whatever. That's still theft.

Besides the bank has to inform the gov when you take out 10k or more from your bank account.
If they get no report they're going to wonder where you came up with that cash. Why ask for problems when a simple cashier's check works just as well?

Because that takes time. If I want to buy a car and I've got $5000 right here, who needs a middleman?

You seem to be pimping for Statism here. As if whatever you do with your money the gummint has to know about it.
In my world that money belongs to me, and it ain't nobody's bidness how I spend it.

I'm not putting a down payment on a car with 5k.
I'm more than likely trading in my old vehicle for 10 to 15k.

And as I've already said ya dumbfuck!!!
I dont care how you go about your business.
And I've said I dont agree with seizing money unless there is ample evidence of criminal activity.

I wasn't talking "down payment". What do you think, I'm gonna buy a new car and pay for "depreciation"?

Literally never done that, ever.

But if you don't mind that I can take a wad of cash and buy a car, then don't enable this asset-forfeiture shit. Suppose I was on my way to buy that car and I get pulled over and robbed by a uniform. Follow me?

I always buy new,and I always buy Toyota because they hold their value.
I traded in my 2007 FJ and got 14k for it two years ago.

If you were on your way to buy a new car I suspect you'd be able to prove that by simply telling the cop to contact the dealership.

Here's my take on this shit,if you're unemployed and are riding around with 10k I'm going to be suspicious if I'm a cop.
But I still dont think thats grounds to seize that money unless there's other evidence that the money is dirty.
You dont really gain anything by paying cash when a cashiers check would do the same thing.
Just like when we travel we dont carry 10k in cash we get travelers checks.

 

[OnePercenter]

Civil assets forfeiture was Jeff Session's pet concern and he just put himself on the sidelines while Donald Trump was being railroaded with a fake Russian collusion scam. At least Sessions had his priorities straight....municipalities simply taking cars, cash, land, etc. without due cause or purely on suspicion alone. He thought that was fine.

Of course the guy in the flashy car with a pocketful for cash is probably a drug dealer of some sort. But probably isn't reason enough. Police Theft So Out of Hand, State Just Passed a Law Banning Cops from Robbing Innocent People
Cops have been making a killing taking stuff just because they can.

Donald Trump was being railroaded with a fake Russian collusion scam.

The FLOTUS is Russian. Her father is a card carrying communist.

While we were distracted with "the wall", Russia carried out successful testing of a missile capable of deploying a nuclear device to the continental US and we have no means of stopping it.

tRump is doing a very good job for Putin.

 

[Norman]

The days of the evil patriarchy are coming to a close as we make the law equal for both genders.

"Judge Gray H. Miller of Federal District Court in the Southern District of Texas took note of the Supreme Court’s 1981 ruling that the exclusion of women from the draft was “fully justified” because women then were not allowed to serve in combat. But the Pentagon abolished those restrictions in 2015, opening the way for women to serve in any military role for which they could qualify.

“While historical restrictions on women in the military may have justified past discrimination, men and women are now ‘similarly situated for purposes of a draft or registration for a draft,’” Judge Miller wrote in his ruling. “If there ever was a time to discuss ‘the place of women in the Armed Services,’ that time has passed.”

Drafting Only Men for the Military Is Unconstitutional, Judge Rules

The feminists will love the equal opportunities.

 

[Papageorgio]

We must keep everything fair. Congratulations all you women. Equality is finally coming your way.

 

[SaxxyBlues]

We must keep everything fair. Congratulations all you women. Equality is finally coming your way.

You say that with a tone of resentment. I'm sure the women service members are happy. Not so sure about the elephant side of the house and their little girls.

 

[Oddball]

The days of the evil patriarchy are coming to a close as we make the law equal for both genders.

"Judge Gray H. Miller of Federal District Court in the Southern District of Texas took note of the Supreme Court’s 1981 ruling that the exclusion of women from the draft was “fully justified” because women then were not allowed to serve in combat. But the Pentagon abolished those restrictions in 2015, opening the way for women to serve in any military role for which they could qualify.

“While historical restrictions on women in the military may have justified past discrimination, men and women are now ‘similarly situated for purposes of a draft or registration for a draft,’” Judge Miller wrote in his ruling. “If there ever was a time to discuss ‘the place of women in the Armed Services,’ that time has passed.”

Drafting Only Men for the Military Is Unconstitutional, Judge Rules

The feminists will love the equal opportunities.

No.

Abolish the draft and end Selective Service altogether.

 

[Stormy Daniels]

As it should be. There's no reason for women to be excluded from the draft. We have just as much at stake, and we have just as much to contribute.

 

[Maxdeath]

Good they want everything equal it should be equal. They can not have somethings equal when it benefits women then whine when it does not benefit them. If they do not want to be fully equal then we should go back 200 years when women did not have the right to vote, hold office and all the other things they want now.

 

[whitehall]

It's not "equality" when men aren't drafted.

 

[Norman]

As it should be. There's no reason for women to be excluded from the draft. We have just as much at stake, and we have just as much to contribute.

Well there is the reason that women can't fight and cause more trouble than it's worth. Other nations are laughing at this move, because any cave idiot aware of the differences between the genders knows the fact. But sure other than that.

In the dystopian genocidal leftist future, women do everything except what they are supposed to do... have children.

 

[Pogo]

There's no reason for women to be excluded from the draft.

Yeah I think actually EVERYBODY is excluded from the draft.

 

[Lesh]

Stupidly irrelevant.

NO ONE is being drafted

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Funny how people failed to read – or comprehend – articles they link to:

“Judge Miller’s ruling was declaratory, and it did not specify any action that the government must take to comply.”