Rand Paul: Stop Feds From Seizing Property

[Newell Steamer]

Look at that - he is not all about shooting down drones!!

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-brief...-bill-to-block-the-feds-from-seizing-property

Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) on Tuesday revived legislation that would permanently limit the government’s ability to use a controversial tactic known as asset forfeiture to seize property from people who sometimes haven’t been charged with a crime.

The Obama administration has moved to end one seizure program, but Paul’s legislation goes further, stripping federal officials of much of the authority they have to seize and forfeit property.

Under the bill, which Paul has dubbed the Fifth Amendment Integrity Restoration (FAIR) Act, the government would not only have to prove that seized property had been used as part of illegal activity, but also that the owner had done so intentionally.

The Obama administration has taken steps to change the requirements for civil forfeiture under one program administered by the Justice Department, called “Equitable Sharing.”

The Justice Department has for years run the program, which allows local law enforcement to work with the agency to “federalize” an investigation, keep the forfeited property and split the proceeds with the Justice Department.

Under new guidelines announced two weeks ago, the federal government will only assist local agencies if seizing the property has a public safety purpose.

That program, however, only accounts for a small portion of federal asset forfeitures.

Paul’s legislation would more broadly limit the federal government’s authority to forfeit seized property while acting as a safeguard against a new presidential administration changing the policy announced by the Obama Justice Department.

Paul’s bill would also codify measures to stop states from working with the federal government on forfeiture.

 

[dphantom]

good. hope to see something like this take effect soon.

 

[fskimospy]

I like this idea very much. First, because I hope he succeeds. Second, because it will be a really good shithead test for people in congress.

I wish Rand Paul would just stick to doing this sort of thing.

 

[brycejones]

I like this idea very much. First, because I hope he succeeds. Second, because it will be a really good shithead test for people in congress.

I wish Rand Paul would just stick to doing this sort of thing.

/thread

 

[BoberFett]

I like this idea very much. First, because I hope he succeeds. Second, because it will be a really good shithead test for people in congress.

I wish Rand Paul would just stick to doing this sort of thing.

:thumbsup:

I've been rather disappointed when Rand takes a typical GOP stance, but this one is good.

 

[werepossum]

I like this idea very much. First, because I hope he succeeds. Second, because it will be a really good shithead test for people in congress.

I wish Rand Paul would just stick to doing this sort of thing.

Agreed. Coming right after Obama's move, this is especially encouraging.

Occasionally, both parties compete to do the right thing first or best. Very, very occasionally. Especially a libertarian idea like this.

 

[MovingTarget]

Agreed. Coming right after Obama's move, this is especially encouraging.

Occasionally, both parties compete to do the right thing first or best. Very, very occasionally. Especially a libertarian idea like this.

This. Although I do feel a bit dirty for agreeing with the likes of Rand Paul, I won't let that get in the way of supporting a good idea when I hear one. Best of luck both to Paul and Obama on this issue. :thumbsup:

 

[Moonbeam]

I hear you can slowly heat a pot of live frogs to the point they end up in a police state and they'll have no idea how it happened.

 

[OutHouse]

How did this become law in the first place. And how is taking people's stuff when they had done nothing wrong ever make it past the supreme court.

 

[Pipeline 1010]

How did this become law in the first place. And how is taking people's stuff when they had done nothing wrong ever make it past the supreme court.

$$$

 

[PokerGuy]

How did this become law in the first place.

Think of the children! We need a way to stop money from flowing in the drug trade and funding terrorists .... and hurting children! Did I mention, terrorists and children? It would only be used to stop drug lords and terrorists, of course never against average citizens, trust us.

And how is taking people's stuff when they had done nothing wrong ever make it past the supreme court.

The supremes are not there to make the law, they are there to determine if a law passes constitutional muster. The law could easily be crafted in such a way as to pass muster, while still resulting in the forfeiture garbage we have now.

 

[PokerGuy]

I like this idea very much. First, because I hope he succeeds. Second, because it will be a really good sh*thead test for people in congress.

I wish Rand Paul would just stick to doing this sort of thing.

Aww crap... I agree with this 100%. Now I have to rethink my position

 

[hal2kilo]

How did this become law in the first place. And how is taking people's stuff when they had done nothing wrong ever make it past the supreme court.

Just say No! is why. Think of the children.

 

[ivwshane]

How did this become law in the first place. And how is taking people's stuff when they had done nothing wrong ever make it past the supreme court.

It really started in 1984 when the comprehensive crime control act was passed and signed into law by saint reagan in another effort to fight the war on drugs.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comprehensive_Crime_Control_Act_of_1984

 

[PokerGuy]

It really started in 1984 when the comprehensive crime control act was passed and signed into law by saint reagan in another effort to fight the war on drugs.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comprehensive_Crime_Control_Act_of_1984

Interesting that you take a shot at Reagan for signing the law, but not at the legislature that actually crafted and passed the law. The house was completely controlled by dems, and the senate was in repub hands by a small margin. Both parties working together to create lousy legislation. Ugh.

 

[fskimospy]

Interesting that you take a shot at Reagan for signing the law, but not at the legislature that actually crafted and passed the law. The house was completely controlled by dems, and the senate was in repub hands by a small margin. Both parties working together to create lousy legislation. Ugh.

Yeah the war on drugs is a 100% bipartisan failure. From Nixon up through and including Obama it has been an ever-escalating disaster. Legislation like this is the result.

 

[brycejones]

Yeah the war on drugs is a 100% bipartisan failure. From Nixon up through and including Obama it has been an ever-escalating disaster. Legislation like this is the result.

Kind of like the ever escalating war on domestic terror as well. To many parallels.

 

[Kadarin]

Interesting that you take a shot at Reagan for signing the law, but not at the legislature that actually crafted and passed the law. The house was completely controlled by dems, and the senate was in repub hands by a small margin. Both parties working together to create lousy legislation. Ugh.

The Democrat and Republican parties are both heavily corporatist and believe in a strong central federal government. The idea of asset forfeiture fits in with that nicely.

It's nice to see libertarian points of view shine once in a while.

 

[werepossum]

The Democrat and Republican parties are both heavily corporatist and believe in a strong central federal government. The idea of asset forfeiture fits in with that nicely.

It's nice to see libertarian points of view shine once in a while.

Exactly. Far too often libertarian principles get only lip service in D.C. if that.

 

[ivwshane]

Interesting that you take a shot at Reagan for signing the law, but not at the legislature that actually crafted and passed the law. The house was completely controlled by dems, and the senate was in repub hands by a small margin. Both parties working together to create lousy legislation. Ugh.

Well you see dear pokerguy, the president kinda sets the agenda, you know unless the senate has veto override capabilities. Which is what he did when he pocketed the 1983 crime bill and sent congress his own 42 point plan (and no it wasn't similar).

Now to even further blow your mind...the house never directly voted on the bill as it was used as an amendment on a must pass spending bill.

But if it makes you feel better, sure both parties are to blame.

 

[PokerGuy]

Well you see dear pokerguy, the president kinda sets the agenda, you know unless the senate has veto override capabilities.

Sorry, "setting the agenda" is not creating legislation. Perhaps he can exert influence and perhaps use his bully pulpit as president to push something. There is, however, only one part in our system of government that can create and pass legislation -- the legislative branch, congress.

You want to blame the guy who "sets the agenda" for lousy legislation, instead of blaming the legislative branch that actually created and passed it Of course the president is partially to blame because he signed it into law, but he doesn't create it, and can not pass law without congress.

Now to even further blow your mind...the house never directly voted on the bill as it was used as an amendment on a must pass spending bill.

Oh, I see. So congress it not to blame for legislation if it's passed as an amendment to other "must pass" bills? Who is accountable for it then? Obviously, it can't be the president by your logic because he can't veto a "must pass" bill, right? Brilliant logic you got there.

In your zeal to blame one party, you just willfully want to pretend the other party wasn't at fault. This is about as clear-cut an example of the parties working together to create lousy legislation as you can get.

 

[werepossum]

Sorry, "setting the agenda" is not creating legislation. Perhaps he can exert influence and perhaps use his bully pulpit as president to push something. There is, however, only one part in our system of government that can create and pass legislation -- the legislative branch, congress.

You want to blame the guy who "sets the agenda" for lousy legislation, instead of blaming the legislative branch that actually created and passed it Of course the president is partially to blame because he signed it into law, but he doesn't create it, and can not pass law without congress.

Oh, I see. So congress it not to blame for legislation if it's passed as an amendment to other "must pass" bills? Brilliant logic you got there.

In your zeal to blame one party, you just willfully want to pretend the other party wasn't at fault. This is about as clear-cut an example of the parties working together to create lousy legislation as you can get.

We could slap some magnets on his ass, surround him with facts about Reagan, and have clean and damned near free electricity for all Americans. Although that much spin might actually slow the Earth's rotation . . .

 

[ivwshane]

Sorry, "setting the agenda" is not creating legislation. Perhaps he can exert influence and perhaps use his bully pulpit as president to push something. There is, however, only one part in our system of government that can create and pass legislation -- the legislative branch, congress.

You want to blame the guy who "sets the agenda" for lousy legislation, instead of blaming the legislative branch that actually created and passed it Of course the president is partially to blame because he signed it into law, but he doesn't create it, and can not pass law without congress.

Oh, I see. So congress it not to blame for legislation if it's passed as an amendment to other "must pass" bills? Who is accountable for it then? Obviously, it can't be the president by your logic because he can't veto a "must pass" bill, right? Brilliant logic you got there.

In your zeal to blame one party, you just willfully want to pretend the other party wasn't at fault. This is about as clear-cut an example of the parties working together to create lousy legislation as you can get.

Looks like someone is going all Muslim extremist on us to protect his prophet reagan!

As I said, if you want to blame both parties for this bad policy then go for it. That doesn't change the fact that the 1984 act was based on Reagan's proposal and the act was signed by Reagan. Are you denying this? Are you denying Reagan's use and success from using the bully pulpit?

 

[ivwshane]

We could slap some magnets on his ass, surround him with facts about Reagan, and have clean and damned near free electricity for all Americans. Although that much spin might actually slow the Earth's rotation . . .

You wouldn't know what a fact looks like if it slapped you in the face with a magnet attached to stick to that metal plate in your head

 

[PokerGuy]

Looks like someone is going all Muslim extremist on us to protect his prophet reagan!

Someone thinks Reagan was a prophet and threatened your life for disagreeing with him? Who? Oh, and I believe if you read my posts you'll see that I very clearly place blame on him as well. He signed it into law.

As I said, if you want to blame both parties for this bad policy then go for it. That doesn't change the fact that the 1984 act was based on Reagan's proposal and the act was signed by Reagan. Are you denying this? Are you denying Reagan's use and success from using the bully pulpit?

You can argue influence and bully pulpit all day long, but the fact is and remains undeniable: Congress passed the legislation, Reagan signed it into law. Blaming Reagan for it while absolving the actual body that passed the legislation of blame means you are either a partisan hack incapable of rational thought, or ignorant of how the government works -- or both. You can pick which category you fit in.