From: ataylor@nmsu.edu (Nosy)
Subject: Re: Decline Of Rights in the U.S: Will Clinton Reverse This?
Organization: NMSU Computer Science
	<1992Sep1.185755.17716@auto-trol.com>
	<ATAYLOR.92Sep2212415@gauss.nmsu.edu> <BtzM5p.3r4@mentor.cc.purdue.edu>
	<1992Sep3.205116.11522@pony.Ingres.COM>
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1992 23:10:03 GMT

<In article <1992Sep3.205116.11522@pony.Ingres.COM> garrett@Ingres.COM (QUOTE OF THE YEAR) writes:
<   In article <BtzM5p.3r4@mentor.cc.purdue.edu>, dev@mentor.cc.purdue.edu (Larry  writes...
<   >ataylor@nmsu.edu (Nosy) once wrote: 
<   >> katbea@auto-trol.com (Kathy Beatty) writes:
<   >>> dev@mentor.cc.purdue.edu (Larry Weeks) writes:

[snip]

<   >>>> person with due process, and nobody can take your property without
<   >>>> due process (in theory today, though).
<   >>>
<   >>> Wrong. The DEA has the power to confiscate property without even
<   >>> charging you with a crime!
<   >>
<   >> Correct. This power has also been extended to game wardens, State
<   >> and even local police in some States.
<   > 
<   >I said in theory. :-) The forfeiture laws are patently
<   >unconstitutional, no matter what the courts say. That's the problem
<   >with allowing the courts in interpret the Constitution. They can
<   >interpret it to mean whatever they like.

<   Unfortunantly true. This came about in the 80's to combat drug
<   smugglers, but is now used against anybody.

	I recall debating both "conservatives" (who supported
	law 'n order) and "liberals" (who supported "changing
	law with the times") over the civil forfeiture laws
	when they were first proposed. 

	Some folks have admitted that they were wrong and
	civil forfeiture is a can of worms...others insist
	that "the police are always right".

	Sigh.

	There was a report in the Dallas Morning News sometime
	back that the Dallas PD was going to use seized "drug
	money" to HIRE MORE POLICE.

	Can anyone say whether this actually happened or not?

<   >>> Several of the Reagan/Bush appointees to the supreme court believe
<   >>> there is no right to privacy in the U.S. 
<   >>
<   >> Name them, please.
<   > 
<   >Well, that penumbra thing was pretty damn stupid. I'm pretty sure
<   >all the sitting justices would agree with that. But I too agree that
<   >there is no basic "right to privacy" per se.
   > 
<   Scalia for one. 

	I'd like to see a citation, please. Scalia has
	some respect for stare decesis (sic) even though
	he reads the Constitution narrowly.

<I think Rhenquist feels that way too. 

	Well, shucks, can you provide a cite?

<But just 
<because it isn't spelled out, is what the 10th amendment is for.
<Oliver Wendel Holmes believed in the right of privacy and so did
<Earl Warren. In fact most Supreme Court justices believed in it.

	Huh? I thought that "most Reagan appointees don't
	believe in a right to privacy"...

<   >In the U.S. the right to privacy has always been intimately connected
<   >to the right to be secure in your property. The "liberal" courts, in
<   >disassembling our property rights for the supposed social good, have
<   >also disassembled our basic privacy rights.

<   You sound like you know what your talking about, but I need an 
<   example or two. 

	I cannot provide the cite, but there are cases from
	the New Deal era in which property rights (specifically
	"no confiscation without compensation") got the very
	short end of the stick.

<Most "rights stomping" in history, American or
<other, has been done in the name of law and order. 

	Well, I suppose that's true (although the Sullivan law
	in NYC was blatantly racist) in some sense....

<Also, the 14th
<amendment was brought to its full potential under Earl Warren, after
<a consevative court in the 1870's had tried to make it meaningless.

	Please, let's not get into "conservative" vs. "liberal"
	labels for Courts over 100 years old.

	Are you referring to "Cruikshank", perhaps?

<(I can't remember the case off hand, but I know it originated out
<of Louisiana.)

	"Cruikshank" is from Illinois.

<    Ergo, you have contrived
<   >opinions, like Roe v. Wade, to awkwardly justify some right to
<   >privacy. You have government which can search and seize your property
<   >without warrant. And that's not because of conservative courts, which
<   >believe it or not are actually reassembling property rights piece by
<   >piece.

<   This is true. The conservatives have always been big on property 
<   rights. But the liberals have always been the champions of civil
<   right (aka the Bill of Rights).

	Really? Name some "liberals" who champion the rights
	of poor black people to keep and bear arms.....
	
<   >Perhaps the "conservatives" want to get "tough on crime," trampling
<   >our rights in the process. But if we hadn't been ignoring our basic
<   >private property rights for the last fifty years or so, they wouldn't
<   >be able to get away with nearly as much bullshit.

<   Interesting train of thought. Can you elaborate? How are you 
<   equating property rights with civil rights (like the 1st, 4th, and
<   6th amendments).

	Property rights ARE civil rights; you can't have a free
	press if the government confiscates your press without
	compensation. You can't be secure in your house if the
	government confiscates it without compensation. 


<   The mean evil
<   >"conservatives" are simply taking advantage of fifty years of
<   >"liberal" trampling of rights.

<   Elaborate please.

	Well, IMHO, the current "activist" court is simply
	following in the footsteps of the 1960's "activist"
	court...although the current court hasn't gotten
	around to overturning literally hundreds of precedents
	as the Warren court did.

   >"The natural progress of things is for government to gain ground and
   > for liberty to yield." -- Thomas Jefferson
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.mideast,misc.headlines