Results 1 to 10 of 10

Thread: It's official. Obama wants to keep poor people poor.

  1. #1 | Top
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    61,491
    Thanks
    1,041
    Thanked 3,617 Times in 2,816 Posts
    Groans
    1,008
    Groaned 1,328 Times in 1,225 Posts

    Default It's official. Obama wants to keep poor people poor.

    This fall, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear arguments in Alvarez v. Smith, a challenge to Illinois' particularly brutal asset forfeiture law. The law allows the police to keep property seized in warrantless searches for up to six months before giving even a preliminary hearing, even if no criminal charges are filed.

    That case is a challenge to a provision in the Illinois forfeiture laws that allow police to keep seized property a year or more before a claimant can have his day in court to get it back. This is particularly harsh on low-income people who may rely a seized car to get to work, or to shuttle kids around.

    It’s worth noting that Obama’s Justice Department filed an amicus brief on behalf of the state in that case. They weren’t obligated to. Though the solicitor general’s office is charged with defending all federal laws, the law at issue in Alvarez is a state law, not a federal one. In fact, federal civil forfeiture laws are much friendlier to property owners. So you could make a decent case that the administration could have argued against the Illinois law. At the very least, it could have kept quiet. Instead, it argued that the state should retain the power to take property from people without ever charging a crime (and not necessarily kingpins—the Illinois law in question applies only to property valued at under $20,000), and keep that property for a year or more before affording the owner a chance to get it back.

    Taking property from poor people without due process of law in order to enrich local police departments. Seems like the sort of thing Barack Obama might have fought to change in his days as a community organizer.
    A sad commentary on we, as a people, and our viewpoint of our freedom can be summed up like this. We have liberals and conservatives, Democrats and Republicans, yet those very people look at Constitutionalists as radical and extreme.................so those liberals and conservatives, Democrats and Republicans must believe that the constitution is radical and extreme.

  2. #2 | Top
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Hawaii
    Posts
    6,900
    Thanks
    34
    Thanked 274 Times in 105 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 7 Times in 6 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SmarterThanYou View Post
    This fall, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear arguments in Alvarez v. Smith, a challenge to Illinois' particularly brutal asset forfeiture law. The law allows the police to keep property seized in warrantless searches for up to six months before giving even a preliminary hearing, even if no criminal charges are filed.

    That case is a challenge to a provision in the Illinois forfeiture laws that allow police to keep seized property a year or more before a claimant can have his day in court to get it back. This is particularly harsh on low-income people who may rely a seized car to get to work, or to shuttle kids around.

    It’s worth noting that Obama’s Justice Department filed an amicus brief on behalf of the state in that case. They weren’t obligated to. Though the solicitor general’s office is charged with defending all federal laws, the law at issue in Alvarez is a state law, not a federal one. In fact, federal civil forfeiture laws are much friendlier to property owners. So you could make a decent case that the administration could have argued against the Illinois law. At the very least, it could have kept quiet. Instead, it argued that the state should retain the power to take property from people without ever charging a crime (and not necessarily kingpins—the Illinois law in question applies only to property valued at under $20,000), and keep that property for a year or more before affording the owner a chance to get it back.

    Taking property from poor people without due process of law in order to enrich local police departments. Seems like the sort of thing Barack Obama might have fought to change in his days as a community organizer.
    Gee, surprise surprise! Obama is a total fucking douchebag like the resto of them! Who knew?

  3. #3 | Top
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Detroit, AKA HEAVEN
    Posts
    31,403
    Thanks
    11,769
    Thanked 10,865 Times in 7,323 Posts
    Groans
    642
    Groaned 785 Times in 732 Posts
    Blog Entries
    2

    Default

    It truly saddens me that these issues even have to go to court, let alone be fought in court.
    WATERMARK, GREATEST OF THE TRINITY, ON CHIK-FIL-A
    Quote Originally Posted by Sigmund Freud View Post
    The fields of mediocre chicken sandwiches shall be sowed with salt, so that nothing may ever grow there again.
    www.gunsbeerfreedom.blogspot.com

    www.gunsbeerfreedom.blogspot.com

  4. #4 | Top
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    47,970
    Thanks
    4,579
    Thanked 3,084 Times in 2,618 Posts
    Groans
    3,368
    Groaned 2,119 Times in 1,992 Posts

    Default

    that is fucked....

    and i have no doubt bush admin support this as well......

  5. #5 | Top
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    74,838
    Thanks
    15,266
    Thanked 14,432 Times in 12,044 Posts
    Groans
    18,546
    Groaned 1,699 Times in 1,647 Posts
    Blog Entries
    6

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Yurt View Post
    that is fucked....

    and i have no doubt bush admin support this as well......
    And I have no doubt that the Clinton administration supported this as well.
    SEDITION: incitement of resistance to or insurrection against lawful authority.


  6. #6 | Top
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    6,841
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default

    Not six months. The amicus brief points out that the respondents demanded a probable cause hearing within ten business days. They're not constitutionally obliged to any hearing prior to the forfeiture hearing, pursuant to 38 F.3d at 324. That's what the disagreement is about.

    Not that this is going to mean anything to you retards, but feel free to read it yourself:
    http://www.abanet.org/publiced/previ...nerAmCuUSA.pdf

  7. #7 | Top
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    61,491
    Thanks
    1,041
    Thanked 3,617 Times in 2,816 Posts
    Groans
    1,008
    Groaned 1,328 Times in 1,225 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ib1yysguy View Post
    Not six months. The amicus brief points out that the respondents demanded a probable cause hearing within ten business days. They're not constitutionally obliged to any hearing prior to the forfeiture hearing, pursuant to 38 F.3d at 324. That's what the disagreement is about.

    Not that this is going to mean anything to you retards, but feel free to read it yourself:
    http://www.abanet.org/publiced/previ...nerAmCuUSA.pdf
    What is apparent is that you'll defend the same conservative asset forfeiture policies that were implemented by Reagan and both Bush's, now that they supported by Obama. you're a cheap sellout hack, is what you are. The fact that the PRESIDENT had to intervene with a brief concerning a STATE policy is all that matters. It means your POTUS hates the poor.
    A sad commentary on we, as a people, and our viewpoint of our freedom can be summed up like this. We have liberals and conservatives, Democrats and Republicans, yet those very people look at Constitutionalists as radical and extreme.................so those liberals and conservatives, Democrats and Republicans must believe that the constitution is radical and extreme.

  8. #8 | Top
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    356
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default

    Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.
    PHD in THC
    2nd degree blackbelt in Bonghitsu

  9. #9 | Top
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Las Cruces New Mexico
    Posts
    10,656
    Thanks
    260
    Thanked 1,630 Times in 874 Posts
    Groans
    8
    Groaned 39 Times in 33 Posts

    Default

    two things come to mind:

    The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized

    and

    nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

    As we saw in East Texas these sort of laws are used to line the pockets of the cops and to fill the public coffers. Sometimes, just sometimes, I think about watering the tree of liberty.

  10. #10 | Top
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Las Cruces New Mexico
    Posts
    10,656
    Thanks
    260
    Thanked 1,630 Times in 874 Posts
    Groans
    8
    Groaned 39 Times in 33 Posts

    Default

    “A Government is instituted to protect property of every sort . . . This being the end of government, that alone is a just government, which impartially secures to every man, whatever is his own.” James Madison

Similar Threads

  1. Democrats helping the poor to stay poor
    By Cancel 2016.2 in forum Current Events Forum
    Replies: 25
    Last Post: 02-13-2014, 12:17 PM
  2. Not a joke - is there some weird medical phobia of poor people?
    By BRUTALITOPS in forum Off Topic Forum
    Replies: 18
    Last Post: 06-16-2008, 09:34 AM
  3. Replies: 4
    Last Post: 05-20-2008, 08:03 PM
  4. Poor People are Bad for the Environment
    By Timshel in forum Current Events Forum
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 02-08-2008, 02:28 PM
  5. To poor People
    By $$RichRepublican$$ in forum General Politics Forum
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 07-25-2006, 01:04 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Rules

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •