Trump lashes out against cross border shopping

Asset forfeiture is a breach of due process and the rule of law. It is an anathema to justice.

 

And how is this right exercised?

 

Hasn't anyone ever taken it to the Supreme Court?

 

That is not the topic -- you are so far down the rabbit hole you can no longer see daylight.

 

You already know that the Obama admin repealed asset forfeiture - Obviously because the legitimacy of this activity is highly questionable and a clear violation of the rule of law. "innocent before proven guilty - equal justice under the law"

The question you should be asking is how such bad law gets enacted to begin with - how we have fallen so far down the slippery slope that we can no longer see the mountain top - the mountain top being the principles on which this nation was founded.

 

donald's complaining about cross border shopping? Why? Does he feel he has a warranty claim on his purchase of Melania?

 

Do people have the right to receive abortion treatment from government?

 

"OK got it" as in you agree that it is justified?

 

Is it not something that a Republican administration would've repealed?

 

SCOTUS is completely in cahoots with the criminals that some call our leaders.

https://www.businessinsider.com/supreme-court-ruling-on-civil-forfeiture-2014-11

 

This has nothing to do with whether or not the Gov't has the right to ban abortion. This is a completely separate and different question which I am happy to discuss but, the topic is "does the Gov't have the legitimate authority to ban abortion".

 

I get there could be a valid argument that would justify this arbitrary detainment and have stipulated the requisite conditions for validity = if there is overwhelming consent by "we the people".

 

Perhaps a different Republican administration - who knows ? I am not sure which side forwarded this legislation to begin with but I suspect it was the right.

Regardless - it is the Trump admin who has reinstated asset forfeiture.

 

The government is banning its provision of abortion procedures. That's what the ban means.

 

Trump is a fool.. There is no Canadian tariff on US shoes.

Melania is one of those good immigrants.. willing to do the dirty jobs that Americans won't do.

 

I am aware of this. This has nothing to do with overturning R v W - or the topic which is that banning abortion by the Gov't would be illegitimate.

 

How is R v W even constitutional?

 

How do you know that ANY legitimate law in your eyes, has overwhelming consent by "we the people?"

 

The car needed to be seized because a prostitute was in it?

 

Because women also have effing rights since the 20th century.

 

Don't worry, daddy government loves you. It's for your own good.

 

R v W was about the constitutionality of abortion laws - that current law was "unconstitutional". The SC - doing its job - by striking law which is unconstitutional .. is constitutional.

 

1) we are not talking about "every law" - laws which mess with essential liberty require 2/3rds majority - overwhelming consent.
2) we are talking about laws - "outside the legitimate purview of Gov't"

The legitimate power of Gov't in general - begins and ends where fist meets nose.

The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods, or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.
-- Thomas Jefferson, Notes on the State of Virginia, 1781-82

There is a difference between actions which "directly" injure another person "rape, murder, theft" and those that do not (Alcohol, Gambling, Prostitution and so on)

How many people think Murder should be legal? Rape/Theft and so on ? It is an overwhelming majority - protection from direct harm is high on most peoples list of priorities. This is the reason people allowed some authority power to begin with - as per classical liberalism.

The bar is no different for any other law - especially those messing with individual liberty.

If there is some question as to whether or not a law meets that bar (the bar of legitimacy) then a referendum should be held. In some cases it can be assumed. If we held a referendum on Bestiality - I doubt the "I Like it" side would garner 1/3 of the votes .. but who knows. This is the bar Regardless.

Take Pot vs Meth. It is highly unlikely that 2/3rd's would feel that allowing the Gov't to use physical violence to prevent people from smoking pot is justified. In the case of METH - it is likely that bar would be met.

The point here is that if some action is so harmful to society that Gov't must be given the power to use physical violence on people who engage in that action then, an overwhelming majority will agree - at least 2 out of 3 people.

If 2 out of 3 do not agree - then the action is likely not that harmful to society.

 

You may have answered this before, but who decides what "essential liberty" is?

 

Yes, but was it a constitutional ruling?