The four boxes of liberty:
1. Soap
2. Ballot
3. Jury
4. Ammunition
... and this is the order they should be used in.

It is no mysterious "emergent property". It is a result of the wrong philosophy. There is no "system" to limit statism without getting rid of the prevailing ideology.

Yes, I see property being protected again and clearly on the federal level. Thanks.

"Holder was a 'bad apple' as a result of his ideology, which made him worse than average"
I'm calling a worse-than-average ideology that makes someone support gov't takings a "bad apple". That's a glib name for it, but I can't think of a better one this moment. I think this explanation for expansion of government powers holds sway because politicians have opponents with an obvious motivation to blame other politicians and say "if we just elected the right people," the problems would go away. They have a reason to say they are running for office based on ideology.

It seems to me that none of this is real. People in power taking other people's stuff is an emergent property that happens if there is not a system to limit it.

The 5th amendment in the Bill of Rights guarantees rrights against abuse like this. The 14 amendment primarily strengthened that against states after the Civil War.

Here it is in Section 1 of Amendment 14 in a little pocket-sized paperback I keep on my desk. Second sentence: "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges of immunities of citizens of the United States, nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or PROPERTY, without the process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
This should also apply to federal law because this is federal law telling the states what to do.
Or am I wrong? I wouldn't ask King Barry that question, since he once described the Constitution as a list of negatives or something akin to that.

Excellent.

I would assume that arguments against asset forfeiture would be based on the due process clauses of the 5th and 14th amendments.

It would without a trial, but the proof would be easy.

The Tenth Amendment isn't an excuse for statism. Under that amendment the Federal government was not supposed to usurp state jurisdiction in matters not granted to it in the Constitution, which gave it only limited enumerated powers. But no state is permitted to violate civil rights under the Constitution -- including the 14th amendment and the original Bill of Rights in the first ten. With asset forfeit seizures we have both the Federal government and states trampling civil rights with arbitrary power.

Over the years I've read asset forfeiture horror stories but it appears it is not unconstitutional due to the Tenth Amendment: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
What you wrote above got my old dino brain thinking and looking around. This link directed my attention to the Tenth Amendment~
http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/legis...
Please, prove me wrong. I really want you to.
The concept of a family losing a not hardly paid for brand new car because their sneaky teenage brat got caught by the law smoking dope in it turns my stomach.
I've read of entire homes being confiscated like that.

Governments will always look for any method to confiscate wealth, usually through 'laws' that allow them to tax because you own something, tax because you use something and tax or impound because it declares you shouldn't use something. This method doesn't even live up to the 'due process' and forces people to spend money and time to reclaim their property when the government had not right to take it. This method also removes all those costly and time consuming procedures required to 'prove' the governments rights to your property. This is a very frightening symptom that America has moved to a communist democracy where you have the right to vote for the criminal who will then tell you that you have no rights and use violence to ensure that you understand who has the right to your life. It doesn't matter who is carrying how much money and for what reason, it doesn't even matter if someone is carrying cash because they have criminal intent. Until there is a criminal action the government has no rights, if it does then the individual has no rights.

It's not exactly "a policy that has been abused", it's chronic abuse that shouldn't occur even once, all permitted by an unconstitutional, non-objective policy that shouldn't exist at all. This policy itself is abuse.

One innocent person being robbed by the feds is one too many. I agree, ouc, the statement is nothing but propaganda.

They claim that the statics are that something like 86% of those with assets seized were involved in some kind of crime. Whether or not that statistic is true it shows an enormous disregard for the ones who are innocent. They are the reason for the principle 'innocent until proven guilty'.

And it shows enormous disregard for the principle of objective law in determining who is guilty of what and what knowledge or means they had to fight back. Who knows how many of those alleged 86% were 'guilty' of anything more than some tangential 'crime' against laws and definitions used to ensnare people (like the phony money transaction "structuring" laws or the maze of tax rules) as a way of getting who and what the government wants when it can't do it objectively.

From those two statist premises they have rationalized the stance that they should have and use enormous arbitrary government powers because they have accumulated what they claim is an 86% hit rate against those whom the government claims are guilty, and nothing else is supposed to matter. It's the essence of circular, politically self-serving propaganda for arbitrary government power.

I thought I heard it said, by the Att. Gen. that very few if any "Little People"/" innocent people" get caught up in this and it was also said that those that did, never contested....somehow...that doesn't sound right to me...I've read too many stories over the years and based just on my reading and vetting...I think that statement is utter Bull Crap!

It's worse than theft and much more deadly. It's government force used for theft in violation of Constitutional protections of civil rights under objective law and due process.

It has no more chance than the ballot box. The problem is the philosophy of altruism, collectivism an statism driving the whole culture, not the mechanism used and the how the votes are counted.

He didn't say that Holder was no more than a bad apple. Holder was a 'bad apple' as a result of his ideology, which made him worse than average, not just mundane character and competence problems. But he obviously isn't alone in that.

Isn't this the same guy that shut down direct payment of EPA penalty monies to third parties, like solar and wind companies?

Well, the consistent behavior of all government peoples to use power for their pet programs has been demonstrated again.

A thief is a thief, political party - or reason for the theft does`nt matter. " A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. "

One more example of "The price of freedom is eternal vigilance." If congress understood the meaning of freedom and liberty the law would never abide.

The only issue here, by constitutional authority, is whether it’s the law or not. If the law grants the authority for the feds to do it, they can do it. If we do not like the idea then we need to change the law. End of issue.

Today our dilemmas, and arguable issues, are only compounded by ignoring the laws, ignoring the laws we don’t like. If we can do that, then we might as well not have the laws in the first place. We need to demand that the laws are enforced or change them. This is what I fought for, not for just personal opinion on our laws.

A real nice fast boat leaves Rocgester and goes out to the Canadian side of Lake Ontario. On the return the US CG stops the boat for a routine inspection. One of the gals on the boat has cocaine in her bag. The boat is confiscated for smuggling drugs and the guy is still fighting to get his $70,000 boat back.
A relative started a good job back in the early 1970s. Every week on pay day he took a $100 bill and stuffed it in a big glass 5 gallon water jug. After 20 + years the jug was full and he decided the cash had to be in the bank. Over $100,000 and you don't want to know the crap he went through.

LOL! Seizing Clinton crime cartel money would NOT be an abuse of an asset seizure policy.