MOVED
Reply With Quote
Site Information
About Us
- RonPaulForums.com is an independent grassroots outfit not officially connected to Ron Paul but dedicated to his mission. For more information see our Mission Statement.
MOVED
Last edited by goldenequity; 11-18-2016 at 07:15 PM.
Your banality never fails to disappoint. What a joke.Originally Posted by phill4paul
Amash>Trump
ΟΥ ΓΑΡ ЄCΤΙΝ ЄξΟΥCΙΑ ЄΙ ΜΗ ΥΠΟ ΘЄΟΥ
"Patriotism should come from loving thy neighbor, not from worshiping graven images" - Ironman77
"ideas have the potential of being more powerful than any army....The concept of personal sovereignty was pulled screaming from the ether into this reality by the force of men believing in a self evident truth, that men are meant to be free." - The Northbreather
"Trump is the security blanket of aggrieved white men aged 18-60." - Pinoy
Oh, I'm under no delusions. I just can't see the point in wringing my hands about his appointment and will wait and see what he does in the job. I'd really be surprised if his focus is on pot prosecutions.
Or maybe I'm just happy Christie didn't get the job.
"You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to phill4paul again."
Chris
"Government ... does not exist of necessity, but rather by virtue of a tragic, almost comical combination of klutzy, opportunistic terrorism against sitting ducks whom it pretends to shelter, plus our childish phobia of responsibility, praying to be exempted from the hard reality of life on life's terms." Wolf DeVoon
"...Make America Great Again. I'm interested in making American FREE again. Then the greatness will come automatically."Ron Paul
I'm happy Hillary didn't get the job. Doesn't mean I'm happy with what was foisted on me.
This is why I didn't vote. If you participated in that train wreck you have no right to complain. I do not consent.
"The Patriarch"
Civil Forfeiture Finds A Champion
By Robert Everett Johnson Opponents of civil forfeiture — myself included — have been waiting for someone to take the other side of the debate. Every year, the federal government uses civil forfeiture to seize more than $1 billion dollars in private property simply by alleging it was somehow involved in a crime. Property owners are forced to engage in protracted legal battles to prove their own innocence and get their property back. Perhaps unsurprisingly, it has been difficult to find anyone willing to defend this controversial and constitutionally suspect practice.
That changed at a recent hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee, when civil forfeiture finally found a voice in GOP Sen. Jeff Sessions of Alabama. Now we know what a full-throated defense of civil forfeiture sounds like. And that defense is unconvincing.
It’s not hard to see why champions of civil forfeiture are difficult to find. Consider the case of Russ Caswell, who testified at the recent Senate hearing. The government invoked civil forfeiture to take his family-owned motel, not because he did something wrong, but because some customers violated the law in the privacy of their own rooms. Caswell was forced to prove his own innocence to prevent the forfeiture of his business, which also happened to be his life-savings and retirement plan, all rolled into one.
Few are willing to go on record defending a practice that so blatantly disregards the fundamental principle of innocent until proven guilty — to say nothing of the right to private property.
Enter Sessions. Midway through the committee hearing, he declared that he was “very unhappy” with criticism of civil forfeiture, because in his view “taking and seizing and forfeiting, through a government judicial process, illegal gains from criminal enterprises is not wrong.” Apparently drawing a number from thin air, Sessions announced “95 percent” of forfeitures involve people who have “done nothing in their lives but sell dope.”
Now, nobody disputes that government needs the power to punish criminal behavior. But first things first: Before government labels someone a “criminal,” it has to secure a criminal conviction. The fact of the matter is, we have no way to know what portion of civil forfeitures involve genuine “criminals,” as the whole point of civil forfeiture is that government can take property without convicting or even charging anyone with a crime.
If Sessions is correct that civil forfeiture reliably targets criminals, the government should have no trouble proceeding under the criminal law.
But, Sessions asserted, it would be "unthinkable that we would make it harder for the government to take money from a drug dealer than it is for a businessperson to defend themselves in a lawsuit." Thus, Sessions believes when government wants to take property allegedly involved in a crime, it “should not have a burden of proof higher than a normal civil case.”
There are, however, good reasons why the law imposes the familiar “beyond a reasonable doubt” burden in criminal cases. The government has resources that dwarf those of any private litigant, and the government also has powers private litigants do not. For instance, when a regular Joe sues a business, he must wait until after the trial is over to recover on a judgment. Government, on the other hand, can take your property before trial and then force you to fight to get it back. Given these extraordinary powers, it is hardly “unthinkable” that government should be held to a higher standard of proof.
Want insight more often? Get Roll Call in your inbox
email address
Moreover, to disregard the “reasonable doubt” standard merely because government seeks to take your property, rather than throw you in jail, is inconsistent with the constitution’s protection for private property — a value conservatives like Sessions ought to hold dear.
And Sessions is equally wrong about the profit incentive created by civil forfeiture. He argued that once forfeiture is accomplished, there is “nothing wrong with . . . [having] the money be given to the officers who helped develop the case.”
What Sessions overlooks is the corrosive effect of giving law enforcement a direct pecuniary interest in enforcing the law. The decision to punish an alleged criminal should be based on the government’s interest in preventing crime — not the need to raise additional revenue to fill the government’s coffers. Otherwise, government officials are driven to go after small business owners such as Caswell, who presented a fat financial target but who did nothing wrong.
Sessions plainly believes it is important for government to deter and punish criminal behavior. That’s a conviction we all can share. But the need to punish criminals is not a reason to abandon protections that exist to shield the innocent and to provide due process for all. And it certainly is not a reason to create a direct financial incentive for government officials to pursue forfeiture where they are either unwilling or unable to prove a crime occurred.
So, now we know what a defense of civil forfeiture sounds like. And the need to reform the nation’s civil forfeiture laws remains as urgent as it was before.
- See more at: http://www.rollcall.com/news/home/ci....C2a1RoCk.dpuf
"The Patriarch"
Knock knock?
Who's there?
misterx?
misterx who?
misterx you banal, never fails, to disappoint kinda joke, you. Ha! Ha!
Get off my front porch.
Yeah, this guy's a real peach all right.
Chris
"Government ... does not exist of necessity, but rather by virtue of a tragic, almost comical combination of klutzy, opportunistic terrorism against sitting ducks whom it pretends to shelter, plus our childish phobia of responsibility, praying to be exempted from the hard reality of life on life's terms." Wolf DeVoon
"...Make America Great Again. I'm interested in making American FREE again. Then the greatness will come automatically."Ron Paul
To be fair to him... Commerce Secretary could have been fitting. On the economic front, he's actually not that bad. But for AG?!!! Just disappointing.
"And now that the legislators and do-gooders have so futilely inflicted so many systems upon society, may they finally end where they should have begun: May they reject all systems, and try liberty; for liberty is an acknowledgment of faith in God and His works." - Bastiat
"It is difficult to free fools from the chains they revere." - Voltaire
#MAGA BABY!
You have to be the most immature person on any forum I've ever posted on.
I like to think that I'm not fully developed. I'm only, soon to be, 53. I like and am open to the idea of possible growth in some areas. Much better than stunted, or worse yet, withered stagnation. Thank you for the compliment. I really didn't expect that after our earlier exchange. +rep.
While his economic views may be more palatable, making him a more tolerable choice for Commerce Sec., Based on everything I've read about the guy over the last couple of days he's still a dyed-in-the-wool, grade A authoritarian $#@!. I'm not encouraged.
Chris
"Government ... does not exist of necessity, but rather by virtue of a tragic, almost comical combination of klutzy, opportunistic terrorism against sitting ducks whom it pretends to shelter, plus our childish phobia of responsibility, praying to be exempted from the hard reality of life on life's terms." Wolf DeVoon
"...Make America Great Again. I'm interested in making American FREE again. Then the greatness will come automatically."Ron Paul
I'm gonna hafta say I don't like him for any damned thing except standing in line at a Addeco employment agency.
With respect I would rather him not be given commerce powers specifically because of his drug warrior views. Especially with regards to asset forteitures from those carrying sums of cash across state lines. The two do have overlapping relevance.
http://www.cnn.com/2016/08/18/politi...lty/index.htmlSessions: Case of Central Park 5, later exonerated, shows Trump's dedication to 'law and order'
(CNN)Sen. Jeff Sessions said Thursday that Donald Trump's 1989 campaign to bring back the death penalty for the "Central Park Five" shows the Republican nominee is serious about "law and order," though all five of the men convicted in that crime were eventually exonerated.
"Trump has always been this way," Sessions told WAPI radio in Alabama. "People say he wasn't a conservative, but he bought an ad 20 years ago in The New York Times calling for the death penalty. How many people in New York, that liberal bastion, were willing to do something like that?"
Better known then as a construction magnate and socialite, Trump bought space in multiple New York City newspapers calling for the execution of the five black and Hispanic teens accused of raping a jogger in Central Park. The full page ads read, "Bring Back The Death Penalty. Bring Back Our Police!"
The men, all between the ages of 14 and 16 at the time of the attack, were convicted in a pair of trials in 1990.
But more than a decade later, serial rapist and murderer Matias Reyes came forward and confessed to the crime.
An examination of the evidence, including DNA samples, confirmed that he had acted alone. The "Central Park Five" were exonerated and in 2014, awarded a $41 million settlement.
"He believes in law and order and he has the strength and will to make this country safer," Sessions continued, in an interview first surfaced by BuzzFeed. "And the biggest benefits from that, really, are poor people in the neighborhoods that are most dangerous where most of the crime is occurring. And I think people can come to understand that if the message continues to pound away."
As the negotiations neared a close, Trump wrote an op-ed in the New York Daily News calling the terms a "disgrace."
"Forty million dollars is a lot of money for the taxpayers of New York to pay when we are already the highest taxed city and state in the country," he wrote. "The recipients must be laughing out loud at the stupidity of the city."
“I don’t think that there will be any curtailing of Donald Trump as president,” he said. "He controls the media, he controls the sentiment [and] he controls everybody. He’s the one who will resort to executive orders more so than [President] Obama ever used them." - Ron Paul
You're welcome. I'm glad you are pleased.
Thank you for welcoming me. It takes a big man to do that under these circumstances. I'm glad that your pleased that I'm pleased.
What a beta cuck! Did Patrick Henry even lift, bro?
The Bastiat Collection · FREE PDF · FREE EPUB · PAPER Frédéric Bastiat (1801-1850)
- "When law and morality are in contradiction to each other, the citizen finds himself in the cruel alternative of either losing his moral sense, or of losing his respect for the law."
-- The Law (p. 54)- "Government is that great fiction, through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else."
-- Government (p. 99)- "[W]ar is always begun in the interest of the few, and at the expense of the many."
-- Economic Sophisms - Second Series (p. 312)- "There are two principles that can never be reconciled - Liberty and Constraint."
-- Harmonies of Political Economy - Book One (p. 447)· tu ne cede malis sed contra audentior ito ·
If only there was some sort of oath to defend the constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic.
He lifted wrought iron anchors.
No, big pharma makes money from patents.
If hemp was the better material than cotton, hemp would be used. There are no patents that provide monopoly profits to oil, cotton and steel. they're all raw materials.
And is "big steel" actually worried about hemp in 2016? Marijuana can replace so many pharmaceuticals at a much lower cost.
When did the Constitution become popular around here? Most times I see it being discussed lately, it is in a derogatory way. i.e. calling it the "CONstitution", etc.
================
Open Borders: A Libertarian Reappraisal or why only dumbasses and cultural marxists are for it.
Cultural Marxism: The Corruption of America
The Property Basis of Rights
I lost a huge amount of respect for him when he was claiming that treaties trumped the Constitution. A number of people pointed out that they did not, even people who had his ear, and he wouldn't reply to them. Nor did he correct his stance.
He was wrong and wouldn't admit it.
Months later he had changed his tune.
================
Open Borders: A Libertarian Reappraisal or why only dumbasses and cultural marxists are for it.
Cultural Marxism: The Corruption of America
The Property Basis of Rights
You're like that crazy aunt that drops in over the Thanksgiving holiday and babbles incoherent $#@! after dropping an unflushable log in the guest bathroom. It's kind of an irradiating Dodge green. You've been gulping Gator-aids haven't you?
And Sessions will help that... how?
The more prohibitions you have,
the less virtuous people will be.
The more weapons you have,
the less secure people will be.
The more subsidies you have,
the less self-reliant people will be.
Therefore the Master says:
I let go of the law,
and people become honest.
I let go of economics,
and people become prosperous.
I let go of religion,
and people become serene.
I let go of all desire for the common good,
and the good becomes common as grass.
-Tao Te Ching, Section 57
As someone involved in the trying of these (non)cases, I'd like to know what those statutes are. I've literally never seen in happen.
The more prohibitions you have,
the less virtuous people will be.
The more weapons you have,
the less secure people will be.
The more subsidies you have,
the less self-reliant people will be.
Therefore the Master says:
I let go of the law,
and people become honest.
I let go of economics,
and people become prosperous.
I let go of religion,
and people become serene.
I let go of all desire for the common good,
and the good becomes common as grass.
-Tao Te Ching, Section 57
Posting Permissions
Connect With Us