You can read it as well as I can.
I'll paraphrase for all that don;t like to read.
The only land the Federal government can own is for military or of specific government use.
Property Clause (Art. IV, Sec. 3, Cl. 2), land titled to the federal government and held outside state boundaries is “Territory.” Federal land held within state boundaries is “other Property.”
But within state boundaries the Constitution grants no authority to retain acreage for unenumerated purposes, such as land for grazing, mineral development, agriculture, forests, or parks.

* Once a state is created and is thereby no longer a territory, the federal government has a duty to dispose of tracts not used for enumerated purposes.

We read that clause differently, and that’s ok. 

For one, any real estate that was seized under civil asset forfeiture where the owners were never charged and convicted of a crime that included the value of that land as a reasonable fine.

Civil asset forfeiture is legalized theft, where Cops take your property and force you to sue to have it returned.  Often the cost to fight it in court is not worth the effort and still risk not getting everything you sued for.

That happens at all levels of the justice system -- federal, state and local.

Not a good analogy.

OJ Simpson was never convicted of a crime yet in civil court he was successfully sued to the tune of millions of dollars. Criminal court and civil court have different standards of proof and can address the same act separately. Now asset forfeiture is not quite the same thing as seeking damages for a harm suffered is different but asset forfeiture is designed as a way of denying criminals the profit of their crimes.

It also serves as a way for the government to recoup the costs that they expended fighting the crime. So imagine the government spent $1 million on manhours and equipment to take down a crime network, that is $1 million taxpayers spent to fight the crime. If the government seizes a house bought with illegally obtained money and sells it they are recouping taxpayer dollars that had to be expended because of the criminal's behavior. It is not exactly a traditional damage case with a named plaintiff but it is still collecting things of value for a harm done.

That is not to say that asset forfeiture is never abused, it is sometimes, but a blanket theft analogy is inaccurate.

Not a good analogy.

OJ Simpson was never convicted of a crime yet in civil court he was successfully sued to the tune of millions of dollars. Criminal court and civil court have different standards of proof and can address the same act separately. Now asset forfeiture is not quite the same thing as seeking damages for a harm suffered is different but asset forfeiture is designed as a way of denying criminals the profit of their crimes.

It also serves as a way for the government to recoup the costs that they expended fighting the crime. So imagine the government spent $1 million on manhours and equipment to take down a crime network, that is $1 million taxpayers spent to fight the crime. If the government seizes a house bought with illegally obtained money and sells it they are recouping taxpayer dollars that had to be expended because of the criminal's behavior. It is not exactly a traditional damage case with a named plaintiff but it is still collecting things of value for a harm done.

That is not to say that asset forfeiture is never abused, it is sometimes, but a blanket theft analogy is inaccurate.

That was not an analogy.

It's called an example.

When the government can seize property -- say $12K you were traveling with on an airline domestically -- because TSA contacted the police to report you have "cash," and without a shred of evidence you didn't earn that money legally and honestly, that's called theft.

Any law that allows that is legalizing theft.

The government telling us why they do this doesn't change the fact that hundreds of police departments have been reported to be using CAF to fund their operations and even enrich themselves personally.

I invite you to take time to listen to/watch Steve Lehto's many videos on CAF.  Maybe he can convince you this practice is wrong and needs to be abolished.

from NYC


https://www.youtube.com/shorts/SgrUroZuKBQ?feature=share

from NYC


https://www.youtube.com/shorts/SgrUroZuKBQ?feature=share

I can't find supporting news that the video is real. I checked CNN, MSNBC, Yahoo even Fox. Nada.

From the empire state


https://www.youtube.com/shorts/r6swdV8_05w?feature=share

Where was the Biden caravan / cruise?....<crickets>

I'll take all this over a trump presidency.  If Trump was president it would be even worse.   Biden is the lessor evil.

Who do you think he voted for?

Sent from my moto g power (2021) using Tapatalk

from NYC


https://www.youtube.com/shorts/SgrUroZuKBQ?feature=share

Apparently they've had enough dumpster fire politicians for one lifetime

That was not an analogy.

It's called an example.

When the government can seize property -- say $12K you were traveling with on an airline domestically -- because TSA contacted the police to report you have "cash," and without a shred of evidence you didn't earn that money legally and honestly, that's called theft.

Any law that allows that is legalizing theft.

The government telling us why they do this doesn't change the fact that hundreds of police departments have been reported to be using CAF to fund their operations and even enrich themselves personally.

I invite you to take time to listen to/watch Steve Lehto's many videos on CAF.  Maybe he can convince you this practice is wrong and needs to be abolished.

Some police agency simply taking your cash without any sort of crime attached would be an abuse of the asset forfeiture process and sure, you could call that theft. But suggesting that all forms of asset forfeiture are theft or akin to theft is inaccurate. In other words, the fact that some agents of the government have abused the process doesn't redefine the whole process.

For a department or agency to us civil asset forfeiture funds is not the problem, the problem is when they seize property without justification, hold onto it too long, delay giving it back to you, damage/don't care for the property, profit personally, etc.

I know a fair bit about the process including the pros and the cons. I would not call asset forfeiture wrong however it does need to be regulated and have oversight. Having said that I will give the video a watch.

I will add the caveat that there are jurisdictions where I think the asset forfeiture laws are broken and need to be overhauled. With 50 different states and the federal government all having their own forfeiture laws I am not defending all jurisdiction's asset forfeiture laws, only the general concept/practice.

Some police agency simply taking your cash without any sort of crime attached would be an abuse of the asset forfeiture process and sure, you could call that theft. But suggesting that all forms of asset forfeiture are theft or akin to theft is inaccurate. In other words, the fact that some agents of the government have abused the process doesn't redefine the whole process.

For a department or agency to us civil asset forfeiture funds is not the problem, the problem is when they seize property without justification, hold onto it too long, delay giving it back to you, damage/don't care for the property, profit personally, etc.

I know a fair bit about the process including the pros and the cons. I would not call asset forfeiture wrong however it does need to be regulated and have oversight. Having said that I will give the video a watch.

I will add the caveat that there are jurisdictions where I think the asset forfeiture laws are broken and need to be overhauled. With 50 different states and the federal government all having their own forfeiture laws I am not defending all jurisdiction's asset forfeiture laws, only the general concept/practice.

That's not correct.  The CAF laws in many states are set up to do exactly that -- seize property under mere suspicion that the property is somehow linked to criminal activity.  Even when you are not arrested, not charged or charged and found not guilty, the Cops do not return your property unless you sue them.

Based on your comment, you didn't bother to watch the Steve Lehto video.

You really should watch the video.  It contains research and facts that show the system is abusive, not the Cops abusing the system.

https://www.khon2.com/news/national/ap-us-news/ap-major-gun-safety-groups-come-together-to-endorse-joe-biden-for-president-in-2024/

The nation’s most prominent gun safety groups are joining together to back President Joe Biden in 2024, ...

'gun safety groups?'   

Most of the group's leaders and members have no idea how to operate a firearm, let alone do so safely.

"gun control groups" is more accurate.

"gun control groups" is more accurate.

Groups that want to take peoples right away.

FIFY

That's not correct.  The CAF laws in many states are set up to do exactly that -- seize property under mere suspicion that the property is somehow linked to criminal activity.  Even when you are not arrested, not charged or charged and found not guilty, the Cops do not return your property unless you sue them.

Based on your comment, you didn't bother to watch the Steve Lehto video.

You really should watch the video.  It contains research and facts that show the system is abusive, not the Cops abusing the system.

I did watch a couple of Steve Lehto's videos and he prevents many valid criticisms and covers how broken the laws are in some jurisdictions.

I am not offering a blanket defense of any and all asset forfeiture laws in place, only the general practice of asset forfeiture. Just like with many practices the devil is in the details, the practice can be used justly or unjustly. When it is done unjustly it must absolutely be reformed but where it is done justly I think it can remain and be an effective crime fighting tool.

I did watch a couple of Steve Lehto's videos and he prevents many valid criticisms and covers how broken the laws are in some jurisdictions.

I am not offering a blanket defense of any and all asset forfeiture laws in place, only the general practice of asset forfeiture. Just like with many practices the devil is in the details, the practice can be used justly or unjustly. When it is done unjustly it must absolutely be reformed but where it is done justly I think it can remain and be an effective crime fighting tool.

Taxation is theft, and asset forfeiture is just another form of taxation.

I did watch a couple of Steve Lehto's videos and he prevents many valid criticisms and covers how broken the laws are in some jurisdictions.

I am not offering a blanket defense of any and all asset forfeiture laws in place, only the general practice of asset forfeiture. Just like with many practices the devil is in the details, the practice can be used justly or unjustly. When it is done unjustly it must absolutely be reformed but where it is done justly I think it can remain and be an effective crime fighting tool.

So, because you watch "a couple of Steve Lehto's videos" before, that means you don't need to watch this one?   

You most certainly are offering a "blanket defense of any and all asset forfeiture laws in place," because you haven't given a single example of where it is being done according to your standard of being "used justly."

You still hold the view that the CAF system/concept/practice is not flawed -- just a few bad actors are spoiling it for the people using it properly and effectively to fight crime.  But you offer no actual evidence or cases to back up your assertions.

The video details a STUDY in the STATE of SC showing not only is CAF being used as a way to enrich the operating budget of police departments, but it's being applied to people of limited means (most seizures are < $1,000 and not worth the hassle and cost to sue over) and race (65% of cases involve Black men in a population of about 25% Black men).

Your opinions and beliefs are not facts.  You aren't doing a very good job of convincing anyone you are right, and that Civil Asset Forfeiture is not on its face government-sanctioned theft.

Lehto's done at least 23 videos on various cases, laws, studies, and court rulings, and he's been nice enough to create a YT playlist for us.  Why not do some actual research before posting here again?  Or is there a reason you don't want to? 

Which is stronger:  your need to be right, or your need to for me to be wrong?

https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PLIN0HaGKANpp8-Zw7NEh9XokjmzYCIRiL

Critics argue that innocent owners can become entangled in the process to the
extent that their 4th Amendment and 5th Amendment rights are violated, in
situations where they are presumed guilty instead of being presumed innocent.
It has been ruled unconstitutional by a judge in South Carolina.[4][5] Further,
critics argue that the incentives lead to corruption and law enforcement misbehavior.
There is consensus that abuses have happened but disagreement about their
extent as well as whether the overall benefits to society are worth the cost of the
instances of abuse.

Civil forfeitures are subject to the "excessive fines" clause of the U.S. Constitution's
8th amendment, both at a federal level and, as determined by the 2019 Supreme Court
case, Timbs v. Indiana, at the state and local level.[6] A 2020 study found that the
median cash forfeiture in 21 states which track such data was $1,300.[7]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_forfeiture_in_the_United_States

Nice to know a member of law enforcement on this forum supports the concept that suspects are guilty before being forced to prove their innocence.  He also seems to believe it's fine to force someone to prove a negative -- that the property in question was NOT obtained through illegal income or means.  What happened to the burden of proof being on the state to provide evidence that someone is guilty?

The way CAF operates, it's not the person who is accused of criminal activity, but rather the PROPERTY.  "This car is too nice and expensive for someone like you.  I think we need to take it from you until you can prove your car is not part of some criminal activity."  It's the property that's suspected, not the owner.  Oftentimes, without even so much as a criminal charge, property is taken without any evidence a crime was committed, much less that the crime resulted in this property being obtained.

People who've had their property taken under CAF are put in the position of spending time and money (lawyer fees) to sue for their property back.  If the average is $1,300 taken, how can anyone justify the expense of suing for other than pure principle?  Also, ask yourself how effective CAF is if the amounts seized are only about $1,300?  They aren't seizing millions and millions of dollars in property purchased by drug and human trafficking gangs or king pins.  These are people whose only suspected crime is they had the temerity to carry cash on them.

A SC judge has ruled that CAF is, in fact, unconstitutional -- a FACT that most people with any common sense and understanding of the constitution has been saying since the practice began.  Making an unconstitutional law to allow an unlawful practice does not mitigate its illegality under the Constitution.

 

Taxation is theft, and asset forfeiture is just another form of taxation.

Agree to disagree