Credit: Priceonomics
During a brief meeting with sheriffs where President Trump was apparently introduced to the complex subject of civil asset forfeiture, he offered to destroy the career of the Texas State Senator seeking to reform the system. Whether this was an actual threat or a poor and misguided attempt at humor, its aim was unmistakably to chill reform efforts. It appeared Trump did not know anything about civil asset forfeiture prior to the meeting, and after he got a one-sided lesson from the law enforcement community, he predictably gave it his full-throated endorsement.
We at the Drug Policy Alliance, an organization that has spent decades critiquing this practice and crafting common sense reforms, would encourage the President to spend some more time learning about the civil asset forfeiture system and the compelling reasons why that system needs reform. He would quickly learn that this is one of the diminishingly few policy areas where both sides of the political aisle can find common ground. Instead, he […]
Thanks for this article. Civil Asset Forfeiture is one of the most blatent form of legalized theft and use of force. Libertarians & others have been trying to highlight this egregious tresspass for many decades but most people just tuned them out & go about their lives meanwhile the police state ruins lives and livelihoods. Trump is bringing so many of these issues to the forefront I believe he is doing the country a service at the same time he is causing harm.
Who was in office in 2014 when so much property was seized?
No person shall be shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.
This is the text of the 5th amendment.
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, 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.
One can easily imagine the difference between interpretations of the document above interpreted by “We the Lawyers” or “We the People”
The Lawyers say whereas, whereas, whereas……… The just folks, like the 21 million veterans that swore to defend the thing would ask: Are we at war? Has it been declared? If so, who is the enemy?
…… and if you say “the world”, you forget where you came from.
Wow, False Equivalency much? smh AND lol.
As clearly outlined and linked within that article (if you even read it):
“Today, Attorney General Eric Holder issued an order establishing a new policy prohibiting federal agencies from accepting civil asset forfeiture assets seized by state and local law enforcement agencies unless the owner is convicted of a crime. The U.S. Treasury Department, which has its own forfeiture program, is issuing a similar policy.” –January 6, 2016
Obama never praised, nor endorsed this archaic policy, in fact his administration moved in the direction of changing it. Trump, on the other hand, gave ‘his full-throated endorsement’ without so much as a review or study. The man is incapable of a rational assessment of anything that is not making him money. But yeah, it’s all Obama’s fault for law enforcement carrying on a policy that’s been in effect for decades before now unabated.
The civil forfeiture program really became an issue during the Reagan administration, when the abuse became obvious. It was a Republican program from the get go. Obama put limits on it when, in my opinion, he simply should have stopped it. Trump who is supported by the identitarian Sheriffs is promoting this evil program.