SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Supreme Court curbs power of government to impose heavy fines and seize property
In a unanimous decision, the Supreme Court on Wednesday ruled to drastically curb the powers that states and cities have to levy fines and seize property, marking the first time the court has applied the Constitution's ban on excessive fines at the state level.
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who returned to the court for the first time in almost two months after undergoing surgery for lung cancer, wrote the majority opinion in the case involving an Indiana man who had his Land Rover seized after he was arrested for selling $385 of heroin.
"Protection against excessive fines has been a constant shield throughout Anglo-American history for good reason: Such fines undermine other liberties," Ginsburg wrote. "They can be used, e.g., to retaliate against or chill the speech of political enemies. They can also be employed, not in service of penal purposes, but as a source of revenue."
Also at National Review, SCOTUSblog, and NPR.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by fyngyrz on Thursday February 21 2019, @06:46PM (5 children)
If you read the constitution, you will see there is no penalty of any kind specified for violating it.
So I think it's pretty clear that the authors also assumed that the representatives would be honorable in following its requirements.
I have very high confidence that omission was the single greatest error WRT the constitution's ability to do the job it was envisioned to do.
--
(√(-shit))²
Shit just got real
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Thursday February 21 2019, @06:55PM
Yep. Pretty glaring oversight, that.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 21 2019, @08:54PM (1 child)
yes there was. they expected the people to kill them when they didn't uphold the bill of right and the constitution. not change the channel to watch a "reality" tv show.
(Score: 2) by fyngyrz on Thursday February 21 2019, @10:10PM
This is certainly arguable — but it doesn't change a word of what I said, and in fact reinforces it if true: the lack of a forma process was a huge error; depending on the honor of politicians was a huge error; and to whatever extent your assertion actually underlies the document, relying on that was also a huge error.
Now we have a system that is corrupt from top to bottom, and no adequate means to fix it.
--
Before you louse something up, THIMK!
(Score: 2) by RS3 on Friday February 22 2019, @12:03AM (1 child)
I consider it high treason.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 22 2019, @08:21PM
thank you. it's at least sedition when an elected official tries to subvert the BoR or the constitution. they are supposed to be tried and executed. i thought i was clear by "kill them" b/c it's perfectly legitimate to do it without the trappings of a trial.