Hopefully this begins a trend of the Supreme Court reading and adhering to the actual words of the United States Constitution. It is a rare occurrence. Because it is so rare it should be headline news. Thank you, Supreme Court Justices, for doing exactly what you are supposed to do; render an opinion based on the words of the United States Constitution.
The founders spent a great deal of time in meaningful debate when they drafted the United States Constitution. Their purpose was to have a document that would be the law of the land and that would protect the freedoms and rights of the individual from an oppressive government and an oppressive majority.
Patrick Henry told us, "The Constitution is not a document for the government to restrain the people: it is an instrument for the people to restrain the government." The left disagrees with Patrick Henry and the framers and is trying to minimize this quote and sentiment in their quest to have government reign supreme over the individual and dictate how each individual is to live their lives and what the thoughts of the individual are to be.
In this situation, the Supreme Court adhered to the original purpose of the Constitution and gave an opinion based on the words of the Untied States Constitution. Thank you, Supreme Court.
The case centered on Tyson Timbs, who pleaded guilty in Indiana state court to dealing in a controlled substance and conspiracy to commit theft. When Timbs was arrested, police seized the Land Rover he had purchased, for $42,000, from an insurance policy he received when his father died.
The Supreme Court ruled unanimously that states must adhere to the Constitution's ban on excessive fines, a decision that will likely limit the ability of states to impose certain fees and
In delivering the opinion of the court, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said the Eighth Amendment guards against abuses of the government’s punitive or criminal law-enforcement authority, and that it extends to fines.
“This safeguard, we hold, is ‘fundamental to our scheme of ordered liberty,’ with ‘deep roots in our history and tradition,’” she said, quoting Supreme Court precedent.
This ruling would appear to end the overreach of the government regarding civil forfeiture. Civil forfeiture in the United States, also called civil asset forfeiture or civil judicial forfeiture or occasionally civil seizure, is a legal process in which law enforcement officers take assets from persons suspected of involvement with crime or illegal activity without necessarily charging the owners with wrongdoing.
We have seen how our FBI and DOJ attempted an illegal coup to overthrow a duly elected president inappropriately applying the 25th amendment. Civil forfeiture is a procedure that is just begging to be used by overzealous members of government who wish to minimize private citizens they consider to be threats to the advancement of the collectivist (Marxist, communist, socialist, progressive, Democrat – all virtually the same) agenda. Civil forfeiture is a procedure that is totally contrary to a free society and a normal procedure in a totalitarian society.
THANK YOU SUPREME COURT!!!