Here is a case, and I have been looking for one, to prove why left leaning people should still support Constitutional governance. Paul Jacob points to a case in yesterday's Townhall.com entitled Proven Guilty where the Cato Institute, the ACLU, and the Institute for Justice are battling State and County governments over whether property can be forfeited without a conviction for a crime. The appellants believe they were not given due process.
Forfeiture laws are wrong, and Unconstitutional. Three of the appellants' property was seized, yet they were never even charged, let alone convicted of any crime. In essence, their property was simply stolen. Oddly, Sam Alito seems to be leaning towards the notion that stealing peoples private property is a good thing, while Sotomayer seems to feel that it is outrageous. I agree with Sotomayer here. Never thought you would hear me say that? Surprise! That's because the Constitution, and the "rule of law" are designed to be neutral, to favor no particular outcome on ideological grounds. Justice should be blind, as the statues portray, and if you haven't the evidence to prove a person's guilt in a court of law, whatever the police and prosecutors think they know about him should remain private. I also think that using civil law in this way by governments is a perversion of justice.
I had a conversation several weeks back where I said I wasn't so much a conservative, as I was a Constitutionalist. I just wanted the government to behave within the framework of the Constitution. Thinking about it, he said that could mean that sometimes the Constitution would support the Left. I agreed, but I said at least that way everybody gets to keep his individual liberties. Right now they are disappearing down the rabbit hole. Sam Alito, and anyone else who thinks the forfeiture laws are correct should get on board with Sotomayer on this because this time she has the better understanding of the Constitution.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Absolutely. Well said, sir.
ReplyDelete