"That's Outrageous!"

This is Outrageous!

Blatant Violations of the Fourth Amendment
Jurisdictions Confiscate Property of Americans with Impunity

Amendment IV: "The right of the people to be secure ... against unreasonable ... seizures, shall not be violated...."

From Wikipedia (retrieved September 30, 2009):

In recent years, such has been the wealth generated from economic crime and, in particular, from drug-related crime, that a confiscation or forfeiture element has been added to the criminal process in many jurisdictions. The need for a broader response than a solely criminal one was recognized by the U. S. President’s Commission on Organized Crime as long ago as 1986.

There are two types of forfeiture cases, criminal and civil. Almost all forfeiture cases practiced today are civil. In civil forfeiture cases, the U.S. Government sues the item of property, not the person; the owner is effectively a third party claimant.

Once a government establishes probable cause that the property is subject to forfeiture, the owner must prove on a "preponderance of the evidence" that it is not. The owner need not be judged guilty of any crime. [!]

A [prevalent] form of asset forfeiture is roadside forfeiture during a vehicle stop. Usually enforcing State policies by Highway Police, local law enforcement have built up seized funds and spent them with oversight only from local judges who sometimes benefit from the expenditures of such confiscations.

The presumption is that travelers hiding large amounts of cash are transporting drug money. Often, the vehicle occupants are required to simply sign a waiver that they will leave the State and not return, thus also not attempt to retrieve their funds. Some complain that this is law enforcement action requires more oversight in order to minimize the impact on travelers who are not involved in drug money but who simply wish to avoid further involvement with law enforcement agents and sign the waiver anyway. Sen. John Whitmire, D-Houston, chair of the Senate Criminal Justice Committee is investigating the Tenaha, Texas Police seizures scandal.

Comment by Nate Segal:

I first became aware of this outrageous behavior when I read one of the articles "That's Outrageous!" in Reader's Digest around the year 1986 when the new laws were enacted — this "broader response" added to the criminal process.

Have we ordinary citizens noticed these broad violations of our Constitutional rights?

That's Outrageous!

"Blow-hards and Buffoons: Their senseless rantings are poisoning political debate"

One of Reader’s Digest’s more popular features is “That’s Outrageous!” by Michael Crowley.

Robert P. Murphy writes,

When the feature spotlights government pork-barrel projects, absurd zoning restrictions on homeowners, or illogical regulations on small business, libertarians can applaud. (Retrieved September 30, 2009)

This following article contains a quote from Larry Sabato, co-author of our text book American Government: Roots and Reform.

Political Blood Sport

Thomas Jefferson must be apoplectic in the Great Beyond. He warned that only people who are "well-informed can be trusted with their own government." Well, look what's become of us.

I met up recently with two old friends in California, Jeff and Mary, who told me they are worried about terrorism. But it's not Osama bin Laden they fear — it's George W. Bush. These are otherwise sensible people: He's a doctor; she owns an antiques store. Which is why I was stunned to hear them predict that Bush will stage a terrorist attack this fall to ensure his reelection.

"Seriously?" I asked. Seriously, they said.

Maybe I shouldn't be surprised, not after seeing an "ad" on the website of the liberal advocacy group Moveon.org, that compared Bush to Adolf Hitler. That's the sort of vitriol that's "informing" the public today. And it's hardly confined to the Left.

During the Iraq war last spring, some conservatives said that liberals were secretly hoping Saddam Hussein would teach President Bush a lesson in humility. Fox News host Bill O'Reilly growled that "some Americans were rooting against their own country — that their ideology was so ingrained it was better for them if things went badly in Iraq, even though that would have caused more American casualties."

Welcome to the politics of America, 2004. Thoughtful debate has given way to angry, polarized arguments in which there is no compromise and no middle ground. Shades of gray, you ask? Stop being so wishy-washy! When it comes to abortion, you're either a baby-killer or a religious nut. Try to explain that women should have some abortion rights, but that a fetus is also more than just body tissue, and you're likely to get shouted down in midsentence. And good luck talking about affirmative action — whether you're pro or con — without being called a racist.

Politics have become a year-round blood sport — both for the partisan gladiators and for the media that cheers them on. For evidence, just scan the bestseller lists. There you'll find liberal filmmaker Michael Moore, whose book Dude, Where's My Country? hit No. 1 by taking aim at "screaming, foaming-at-the-mouth right-wingers."

Moore also calls George Bush "an appointed President [who] uses the dead of 9/11 as a convenient cover, a justification for permanently altering our American way of life."

From the other side comes conservative commentator Ann Coulter, who sold a half-million copies of her book Treason, arguing that liberals are "either traitors or idiots" who routinely "side with the enemy" and "aim to destroy America ... with their relentless attacks on morality and the truth."

Flip on the TV or radio and you'll find dozens of partisan talking heads in a nonstop shouting match of escalating nastiness. "The only thing that sells is the screamers," laments Larry Sabato, director of the Center for Politics at the University of Virginia. "Twenty years ago, there were a lot more shows with reasonable discussions. Today people just yell sound bites at one another. And if you don't, you're not used again."

Monopolizing the Truth

Communication might be easier if people at least believed one another. But in today's debate, everyone assumes their enemy fights with weapons of mass deception.

Comedian Al Franken's hit book purports to chronicle the Right's Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them, while another recent book explains The Lies of George W. Bush.

Conservatives, meanwhile, are convinced that a left-leaning media establishment deliberately misinforms the public. Former CBS News producer Bernard Goldberg topped the bestseller list last year with Bias, a book that charges liberal journalists with distorting the news. Ann Coulter was in the thick of the fight again with her book bluntly titled Slander: Liberal Lies About the American Right. It's awfully hard to have a constructive debate when everyone thinks they have a monopoly on the truth.

And it's not just journalists and pundits who are stoking all this rage. It's the politicians themselves. Massachusetts Senator Ted Kennedy has flatly declared the case for war against Iraq "a fraud," while a fellow Democrat, Rep. Jim McDermott, suggested that the capture of Saddam Hussein was timed for maximum political benefit.

In response, House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, a Republican, called these remarks "moronic" and said that Democrats have "nothing to offer the public debate but rage, resentment and quackery." Even the business of government is being paralyzed. One Congressional committee meeting broke up last summer when an angry Democrat called a Republican "a little fruitcake" and challenged him to a fight; the committee chairman eventually summoned the Capitol Police.

Expect things to only get worse as election day approaches. After all, the media and politicians know that people love to watch a good tussle. But all this debate, with so little intelligence, comes at a steep price. Consider this: Some experts are expecting a big surge in new, young voters that could account for 10 percent of the electorate — and perhaps decide the Presidential contest. Hardcore liberal and conservative groups are spending big money to help bring out the youth vote.

But if young Americans do unplug their iPods and tune into politics, what will they make of a poisonous discourse that insults more than it informs? Some may just pop their headphones back on in disgust. The rest will go to the polls on election day, where they'll join the long lines of uninformed citizens.

From Reader's Digest - March 2004

(Retrieved September 30, 2009)

Comment by Nate Segal:

I recently heard the verb 'bloviate' to describe the speech of "blow-hards who opinionate."

Amendment IV

"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."

Ginsberg et al. (page 140) quote the Supreme Court's summary of their understanding of the Fourth Amendment from the case Horton v. California, 496 U.S. 128 (1990):

A search compromises the individual interest in privacy;
a seizure deprives the individual of dominion over his or her person or property.

Comments by Nate Segal

At first glance, I had trouble seeing why the Framers of our Constitution wrote this amendment. I've lived my life oblivious of any of these issues.

I've never had a run in with the police. I can't remember that law enforcement officials ever entered anywhere I lived until recently (by invitation). I was born in 1951, so my memory covers a broad swath of American life, not without turmoil and strife.

I grew up as a privileged white male in a privileged suburb of Chicago. Of course these issues never affected me.

What were the Framers thinking?

As I wrote before regarding the Second Amendment, it seems to me that the Framers of our Constitution and this Amendment wanted to prevent the government abuses that they suffered from the King of Great Britain.

THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE

". . . the present King of Great-Britain . . ."

• "HE has obstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary Powers.
• "HE has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the Tenure of their Offices, and the Amount and Payment of their Salaries.
• "HE has erected a Multitude of new Offices . . ."

Now, I'm seeing the Fourth Amendment with a deeper understanding from current events. Providentially, life in Iran has been in the news. I want to call attention to how the present Iranian regime maintains its hold on power. The enforcement of the will of the clerics is by Iran's Revolutionary Guard. The Associated Press calls the Revolutionary Guard,

an elite force that was created after the 1979 Islamic Revolution to defend Iran's clerical rule.

The Revolutionary Guard's forces have been accused of violently suppressing protests following the disputed June elections.

(The Kansas City Star, "Guard Has Telecom Stake", Monday, September 28, 2009, page A10)

Iran's Revolutionary Guard intrudes anywhere and anytime it decides to.

There has never been a "Revolutionary Guard" in the United States. The Founders gave the federal government limited law enforcement power. Based on Article II of the Constitution, the President (Executive Branch) and Congress have struggled to remain coequals appointing and regulating the powers of officers of the United States.

The Fourth Amendment vividly clarifies the limited degree that law enforcement may intrude in our lives so that there can never legally be a secret or special police in America.