Category: Fifth Amendment rights

Categories
Fifth Amendment rights U.S. Constitution

The Hill to Die On

due process, illegal immigration, deportation, Constitution, courts

“This is a hill they’re willing to die on,” Sen. Marsha Blackburn (R‑Tenn.) told a Fox News audience. The senator was dumbfounded by the Democrats’ support for returning Abrego Garcia, the man deported from Maryland to an El Salvadorean prison.

Former Trump campaign manager and advisor Kelly Anne Conway, substituting for regular host Sean Hannity, opened the program by showing a picture she explained was “Maryland Senator Chris Van Hollen staring affectionally into the eyes of admitted illegal immigrant and accused serial wife abuser and human trafficker with suspected gang ties, who was recently deported to his home country.”

Others claim Garcia is “a loving father and husband,” who “has never been charged with or convicted of a crime in the United States.” 

But whether adangerous criminal or an innocent, hard-​working family man, Garcia’s status is hardly the issue. This is about whether our government must follow its written Constitution. 

In court filings, the Department of Justice acknowledged that Garcia’s deportation was an “oversight” and “an administrative error,” as it violated a previous court order not to send him back to El Salvador. 

A unanimous Supreme Court clarified that the administration is required “to ‘facilitate’ Abrego Garcia’s release from custody in El Salvador and to ensure that his case is handled as it would have been had he not been improperly sent to El Salvador.”

My question is: Why are Trump and Republicans willing to die on this hill? 

It could kill their future political chances. 

I believe in due process, and I vote. 

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

PDF for printing

Illustration created with Krea and Firefly

—

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)

See recent popular posts

Categories
Fifth Amendment rights property rights

Forfeiture Gang Foiled

Nevada, civil asset forfeiture

The Institute for Justice has won a major civil forfeiture case in Nevada.

A district court ruled that the Nevada Highway Patrol — which had grabbed a man’s life savings despite no legitimate suspicion of wrongdoing — can’t try to circumvent state law against arbitrary civil forfeiture (stealing) via a loophole called “federal equitable sharing.”

Even when states reform their laws to prevent police from robbing innocent people, the “equitable sharing” program often “lets them give the forfeiture to a federal agency in exchange for a kickback,” IJ reports.

Gangsterish.

The victim in the present case was Stephen Lara. In February 2021, officers pulled Lara over, detained him for more than an hour, then confiscated the $86,900 in life savings that he happened to have with him, cash that he had saved to buy a house. (He didn’t trust banks.) The Patrol never accused him of any crime. But they tried to keep his money.

With the help of Institute for Justice, Lara got it back — six months later, soon after his case received major publicity. But he and IJ continued to pursue the case, hoping to obtain a ruling that the state constitution prohibits anyone from using the federal program to evade state law.

They have now obtained such a ruling.

If it is allowed to stand, the nightmare of civil forfeiture is over for innocent Nevadans. But the state may appeal. Then it’s up to the Nevada Supreme Court to affirm the obvious.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

PDF for printing

—

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)

See recent popular posts

Categories
Fifth Amendment rights property rights

Property Rights for Competitors

Kelo, eminent domain, property rights, IJ, Institute for Justice

New Year’s Resolution for the U.S. Supreme Court: follow the Constitution.

That’s not what happened in 2005 when, by a 5 – 4 majority, the court determined that governments in this country could enjoy an almost unlimited power of eminent domain. The mere prospect of a more taxable commercial entity or mere desire to appease some constituency would suffice to legally justify violating the rights of innocent property owners.

This Kelo v. New London decision was applauded by abusers of power, derided by defenders of property rights. The latter leapt into action, fighting for legislation in 47 states to give property owners firmer protection.

One exception was New York State, where the town of Utica recently used the power of eminent domain against Bryan Bowers and Mike Licata.

These business partners had established a cardiology service to compete with that of CNY Cardiology group, right next door. CNY begged the city to let it turn the Bowers Development building into a parking lot. We need a parking lot there, said CNY; right where our lower-​priced competitor is sitting.

The city said okay.

Enough, says Institute for Justice, which is representing Bowers Development and all of us by petitioning the U.S. Supreme Court to revisit Kelo.

IJ President Scott Bullock believes that it’s “high time for the Supreme Court itself to … remove this blot on its jurisprudence and restore constitutional guardrails to the use of eminent domain.”

Please resolve to give America a favorable outcome, justices.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

PDF for printing

—

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)

See recent popular posts

Categories
Fifth Amendment rights property rights

Blight Fight

Institute for Justice, property rights

The government destroyed the new fixer-​upper of handyman Eric Arnold, migrant from New Jersey to Georgia, even as he was diligently renovating it. The rationale of Macon-​Bibb County: fighting blight. 

Blight that Arnold was already fighting himself.

What happened to Arnold was not an isolated occurrence.

Institute for Justice reports that over the last few years, “Macon-​Bibb County has demolished over 800 houses that it has designated as blighted through a fast-​tracked, secret code enforcement process that completely avoids court proceedings and deprives property owners of a meaningful chance to protect their property.”

Sometimes, the county doesn’t even notify owners.

Arnold discovered what was about to happen only because a neighbor alerted him that a demolition crew was installing a dumpster on Arnold’s property. He provided officials with evidence of the improvements he was making. But it was like talking to a brick wall. The county’s only answer was to speed up the process.

“To spend all that time and money and sweat and end up with nothing but a bare piece of land, it’s devastating,” he says.

IJ attorney Dylan Moore says that Macon-​Bibb “should welcome skilled home renovators like Eric with open arms. Instead, county officials made demolishing Eric’s house ‘high priority’ after Eric asked for help.…”

IJ and Arnold are suing the county to try to spare others from the loss that he has been made to suffer without any due process whatever. It’s the county’s unconstitutional system that needs demolishing.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

PDF for printing

—

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)

See recent popular posts

Categories
Fifth Amendment rights general freedom international affairs

Brussels Conference Squelched

What happened in Brussels?

“In Brussels, in the heart of the European Union, in a western liberal democracy, we’re unable to have a conversation about identity, migration, borders, family, and security without facing attempts to have it shut down,” says Matt Goodwin, a British professor.

The mayor of a Brussels district, Emir Kir, had ordered the shutdown of the National Conservatism Conference in order, he said, to “guarantee public safety.”

But Kir also stated the real reason, that in his neck of the woods “the far right is not welcome.” He apparently disagrees with viewpoints to be elaborated at the conference.

Police took steps to stymie would-​be attendees.

Prime Minister of Hungary Viktor Orbán said: “The last time they wanted to silence me with the police was when the Communists set them on me in ’88. We didn’t give up then and we will not give up this time either!”

This is a more open targeting of political speech than erasing the “misinformation” of social media posts. Does it signal a new strategy throughout Europe?

Hard to say. The immediate reaction of other European politicians, including many on the left, was dismay and shock that anybody would attempt such a thing. 

“Banning political meetings is unconstitutional. Full stop,” proclaims the Belgian prime minister.

“Extremely disturbing,” says a British spokesman.

Could be sincere; could be a realization that “Uh oh, we’ve gone too far”; could be a mixture of both.

The next question: will it happen again?

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

PDF for printing

Illustration created with PicFinder and Firefly

—

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)

See recent popular posts

Categories
Fifth Amendment rights Fourth Amendment rights national politics & policies

Time to Slap Grabby Hands

Civil Asset Forfeiture, theft, law enforcement, crime

Is the House of Representatives readying itself to do something to limit civil asset forfeiture initiated by federal agencies?

The legislation has emerged from the Judiciary Committee, so there is hope.

The Fifth Amendment Integrity Restoration Act (FAIR) would impose substantial limits on federal civil asset forfeiture — on the power of officers to grab someone’s cash or other belongings on the unsupported suspicion that it was involved in a crime.

Currently, this power to steal based on zero evidence and zero due process remains untrammeled. And forfeited funds thus grabbed can then be spent by the agencies that did the asset-grabbing. 

Victims must spend years in the courts to get their stuff back, if they ever do.

FAIR would require “clear and convincing evidence” of wrongdoing. It would also prohibit law-​enforcement agencies from being able to spend forfeited funds, eliminating a perverse incentive to rob people naïve enough to be carrying “too much” cash for whatever reason.

At National Review Online, Jill Jacobson says that the bill is “a step in the right direction” but doesn’t go far enough. Arguing on the premise of innocent until proven guilty, she insists “there is no reason why federal law enforcement should be seizing personal property from everyday citizens on tenuous suspicion.” 

Or even non-​tenuous suspicion, I would add, for not everyone strongly suspected of doing wrong can be proven to have done wrong. And citizens caught on the wrong end of a government official’s steely gaze should not be regarded as a public resource. 

The reform isn’t finished until civil asset forfeiture is abolished altogether.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

PDF for printing

Illustration created with PicFinder​.ai and DALL‑E

—

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)

See recent popular posts