toomuchtime_
Gold Member
- Dec 29, 2008
- 20,187
- 5,073
- 280
Now you're just rambling. The Supremacy clause is in the Constitution, and it is not something the President has any control over. But this has nothing to do with the letter, which only addresses cases in which the crimes underlying the seizures were in violation of both federal and state laws, and it defines the procedures for deciding which gets the assets. So if some state have abandoned asset forfeiture laws, and I don't believe any have, the letter does not address them, but regardless of what state law may be, federal law enforcement officers are and always have been free to pursue those who violate federal law anywhere in the US, and to seize assets when appropriate under federal law, but this is how it has always been, and is not anything new under Trump.That is simply not true. It only addresses the issue of seized assets where both federal and state laws were violated. The federal government cannot mandate state law or order states to enforce federal laws. If the state hasn't already seized assets, this letter has no relevance.You are confused. Nowhere in the letter does it extend asset forfeiture into states that don't already have it, which I imagine are few if any. It discusses only how the state and federal governments will deal with such assets if they are seized by the state.There is nothing in your link about Trump extending asset forfeiture.An anarchist throwing fireworks and mortars at federal agents got hit by nonofficer shot a peaceful protestor in the face?And those that did that should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.Portland protesters are using lasers against police officers, and it is feared that three of those so wounded in less than 15 seconds may never see again. Just shootin' the laser gunners sounds good to me.I forget ... was Bundy burning down The Target?
Trump didn't send federal officers for burning down a Target, he said it was to protect federal property. Try to keep on subject.
I forget----were the bundy people trashing the lands upon which they had descended? Were people dying daily as a result of the BUNDY GANG?
Yes they trashed the building and there was a shoot out. The reason for the occupation was because the cattle ranchers were setting ILLEGAL fires on the federal grazing lands.
You forget Lew...that was Righteous protest.
ok ----I forget-----what were they righteously protesting? Why were cattle ranchers setting
fires on federal grazing lands----that sounds like a
serious crime to me but not as bad as the urban
nitemare ongoing by BLM
She was being sarcastic.
I got the note of sarcasm-----but still do not see how
the two issues can be conflated
How can you not see it? Trump justified sending the federal troops to PROTECT federal buildings and property.
The Bundy group occupied and damaged federal property, yet Trump pardoned them.
Why was it ok for the Bundy group to occupy and damage federal land and buildings, but he needs to send federal officers to arrest others for doing it in Portland? It's quite simple. Either you say both are just exercising their 1st Amendment rights to protest, OR both are guilty of damaging federal property. The only difference is who the 2 groups are.
Should the officer that shot a peaceful protestor in the face, fracturing his skull be prosecuted?I don't support corrupt democrats seizing private property to enrich democrats.There was no destruction. Trash was left behind. Someone posted pictures. Nothing was destroyed. A corrupt democrat administration, Biden was vice president, tried to seize this family's ranch to enrich the Democrat speaker's son. The federal government under shitstain obama was completely corrupt. They seized the Bundy's cattle. The conduct was so egregious that not a single auction, slaughterhouse or storage facility would take a single head of stolen cattle. Cowboys went and got all those cattle back. The Bundy family had a legitimate grievance. Protesting the civil war is NOT a legitimate grievance.In the Bundy case, that federal property wasnt in jeapordy of being destroyed.I forget ... was Bundy burning down The Target?
Trump didn't send federal officers for burning down a Target, he said it was to protect federal property. Try to keep on subject.
Oh? They caused destruction. Splitting hairs here.
Wrong. The federal government REVOKED their rights to graze on federal land because Bundy quit paying the taxes for doing so and Bundy continued to do it anyway. So they confiscated cattle that were illegally on federal land.
You've made your stance quite obvious that you only care about laws being enforced as long as it is by someone that you don't support. View attachment 367292
Then you don't follow the laws very much. Under Trump the federal government has EXTENDED the laws that allow seizure of private property of citizens after an arrest but pre-conviction. So you against that? Are you against Trump doing that?
Trump Gives Thumbs-Up To Cops Taking More Stuff Away From People
The president endorsed civil asset forfeiture, which lets police seize even innocent people's property.www.huffpost.com
Actually, you didn't show that Trump extended asset forfeiture, just that he thought was a good thing, and used properly, it is.Is this an admission you lost the argument? Now comes the deflection to an argument you thunk you can win with Huffpo articles.An anarchist throwing fireworks and mortars at federal agents got hit by nonofficer shot a peaceful protestor in the face?And those that did that should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.Portland protesters are using lasers against police officers, and it is feared that three of those so wounded in less than 15 seconds may never see again. Just shootin' the laser gunners sounds good to me.I forget ... was Bundy burning down The Target?
Trump didn't send federal officers for burning down a Target, he said it was to protect federal property. Try to keep on subject.
I forget----were the bundy people trashing the lands upon which they had descended? Were people dying daily as a result of the BUNDY GANG?
Yes they trashed the building and there was a shoot out. The reason for the occupation was because the cattle ranchers were setting ILLEGAL fires on the federal grazing lands.
You forget Lew...that was Righteous protest.
ok ----I forget-----what were they righteously protesting? Why were cattle ranchers setting
fires on federal grazing lands----that sounds like a
serious crime to me but not as bad as the urban
nitemare ongoing by BLM
She was being sarcastic.
I got the note of sarcasm-----but still do not see how
the two issues can be conflated
How can you not see it? Trump justified sending the federal troops to PROTECT federal buildings and property.
The Bundy group occupied and damaged federal property, yet Trump pardoned them.
Why was it ok for the Bundy group to occupy and damage federal land and buildings, but he needs to send federal officers to arrest others for doing it in Portland? It's quite simple. Either you say both are just exercising their 1st Amendment rights to protest, OR both are guilty of damaging federal property. The only difference is who the 2 groups are.
Should the officer that shot a peaceful protestor in the face, fracturing his skull be prosecuted?I don't support corrupt democrats seizing private property to enrich democrats.There was no destruction. Trash was left behind. Someone posted pictures. Nothing was destroyed. A corrupt democrat administration, Biden was vice president, tried to seize this family's ranch to enrich the Democrat speaker's son. The federal government under shitstain obama was completely corrupt. They seized the Bundy's cattle. The conduct was so egregious that not a single auction, slaughterhouse or storage facility would take a single head of stolen cattle. Cowboys went and got all those cattle back. The Bundy family had a legitimate grievance. Protesting the civil war is NOT a legitimate grievance.In the Bundy case, that federal property wasnt in jeapordy of being destroyed.I forget ... was Bundy burning down The Target?
Trump didn't send federal officers for burning down a Target, he said it was to protect federal property. Try to keep on subject.
Oh? They caused destruction. Splitting hairs here.
Wrong. The federal government REVOKED their rights to graze on federal land because Bundy quit paying the taxes for doing so and Bundy continued to do it anyway. So they confiscated cattle that were illegally on federal land.
You've made your stance quite obvious that you only care about laws being enforced as long as it is by someone that you don't support. View attachment 367292
Then you don't follow the laws very much. Under Trump the federal government has EXTENDED the laws that allow seizure of private property of citizens after an arrest but pre-conviction. So you against that? Are you against Trump doing that?
Trump Gives Thumbs-Up To Cops Taking More Stuff Away From People
The president endorsed civil asset forfeiture, which lets police seize even innocent people's property.www.huffpost.com
Communists always make me feel like I need to use hand sanitizer and brush my teeth.
Lost what argument? You said, "I don't support corrupt democrats seizing private property to enrich democrats."
I showed you where TRUMP extended the civil asset forfeiture laws. You can do a search and look for any source you want if you don't like mine. It doesn't change that. So are you against what Trump did?
He had the DOJ EXTEND it into states that had stopped doing it. You need to educate yourself and pay more attention to what he does, not just his Twitter.View attachment 367299View attachment 367300View attachment 367301
Wrong. It extends it into states that had stopped the practice. It is making states comply to the rule through federal mandate.
I'm sorry but you are totally wrong here. This is no different than when Trump told Sessions to enforce drug laws into states that had made marijuana legal. It's called the Supremacy Clause.
It is ironic however because Trump ran on the platform of shrinking federal government and giving more power back to the states. Of course he is only doing that for laws he likes.