If you could change ONE existing law... (1 Viewer)

[Whoppletraps]

The Controlled Substances Act.

 

[radcen]

I would add just one Constitutional Amendment: Every Federal law, past, present, and future, automatically has a 20-year sunset clause. In order for the law to remain on the books, it must be passed again by Congress and the President. This would force Congress to address and clean up a lot of their stupid laws, instead of just sweeping them under the carpet for political survivability.

I've never heard this idea before, but I really like it. I'd have to mull it over a bit more, but at first glance I like it.

Along the same lines, I would also make it to where Congress is forbidden from exempting itself from the same laws they want us to live under. If it's good enough for us, it's good enough for them.

 

[Ikari]

If you could change ONE existing law... which law would you change, and why?

I would eliminate civil asset forfeiture. Completely. Wipe it off the books. Why?

1. It's too easily and too often abused by those who utilize it, as it places a profit motive where none should be.
2. It completely ignores the concepts of "justice" and "innocent until proven guilty".
3. It unfairly and unjustly punishes people who are indeed innocent.

It's hard to pick one. Patriot Act is an obvious one. Surveillance/tracking/monitoring laws by the government need to be extremely tight as well. That's probably where I'd try to lay in. In essence I don't think there is much that could be excuse enough for a warrantless search or track (currently right now with the police putting GPS on cars because they're "in public".

 

[Ikari]

I would add just one Constitutional Amendment: Every Federal law, past, present, and future, automatically has a 20-year sunset clause. In order for the law to remain on the books, it must be passed again by Congress and the President. This would force Congress to address and clean up a lot of their stupid laws, instead of just sweeping them under the carpet for political survivability.

The real problem with that would be omnibus bills. They would get huge and then you could really monkey with them. In order for all law to expire, there would need to be protection against omnibus legislation.

One I did think of is Executive Orders. The use of those should be severely restricted, the President uses those to legislate now; that is certainly NOT the purpose.

 

[Calvincoolidge]

gun restrictions
hate crimes
most taxes/tax laws
patriot act (parts of it)
gay marriage legalization
abortion
secession
nullification

 

[Ryanm]

Are you suggesting that only a person with illicit intent is allowed to feign indignation at something that is unfair and unjust regardless how and where it is applied?

I know it's easy to become jaded and cynical in today's society, but there are a few of us who actually do believe in right and wrong, especially when the right side is doing wrong themselves. Civil asset forfeiture simply goes against everything at my core being as to what I believe justice is supposed to be. Simple as that (to use a phrase I rarely like to use). Seldom does the end justify the means.

Did I directly answer your question? No, I didn't. And I won't. You'll just have to take the time to get to know me better and figure it out for yourself. Or, assume. Your choice.

I'd like to clarify, that civil asset forfeiture happens even when the person is arrested and found not guilty or even charged. A trip to jail in handcuffs for any reason = automatic theft of your property by the government.

It's not just about drug dealers.

 

[Ryanm]

Funny... I've seized assets from people... yet I received no profit off of it. Where is this "profit motive" you speak of?

You've seized assets from people because it is your job. I'm not saying you're proud of all of those seizures, but nonetheless, it is your job.

You did receive profit off of it. You get a paycheck, right?

One of my several jobs is at Lowe's, and Lowe's has people who they call "sales specialists." They are supposed to sell install jobs for projects in the customers' homes. They do not get commission for this, but they used to in the past before Lowe's removed commission. However, if they do not get enough installed sales to keep management happy, they do not get a paycheck anymore. That is the profit motive for them, and I think it is the same profit motive for you because if you did not do those seizures, you would probably run a risk of not getting more paychecks.

The assets shouldn't be officially seized until after a hearing has been conducted.

...hang on to that thought for a minute
.
.
.

So...everyone is innocent?

Until they are proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt in trial, yes. I don't know for sure what an unofficial seizure is, but it sounds a lot like theft.

The purpose of asset forfeiture is to REMOVE the profit security of those who earn money by violating the law.

I agree with this statement, yet I think that we are back to the part of not presuming innocence which seems to be the crux of the matter.

 

[Ryanm]

I would add just one Constitutional Amendment: Every Federal law, past, present, and future, automatically has a 20-year sunset clause. In order for the law to remain on the books, it must be passed again by Congress and the President. This would force Congress to address and clean up a lot of their stupid laws, instead of just sweeping them under the carpet for political survivability.

I think you might be on to something here, but something similar is done sometimes, but when it is, it is explicitly stated in the law. A sunset clause would be good, but there are a lot of things that wouldn't need it. Theft, murder, rape, and other similar crimes obviously don't need revisiting, right? What I am getting at is, how do we decide what should and should not fall under that category. We would need to do away with filibusters if this were to happen or we would have some serious problems.

 

[Ryanm]

If I could change one law. I would make it legal for states to secede from the union so they could get away from the monstrosity the federal government is becoming.

 

[Rocketman]

One of governments constitutional obligations is to ensure that if you have a right in one state, it is honored in others (paraphrasing, obviously). If she has the right to get married in CA or IA, it must be honored in TX.

If nothing else, it's absurd that the government is even involved in marriage. It's dispicable that they favor straight marraige. It's disgusting that it's a law based directly on religion.

Gun laws do not work that way. My CCL here is not honored by our neighboring state immediately north.

 

[Keridan]

Gun laws do not work that way. My CCL here is not honored by our neighboring state immediately north.

The comparison isn't quite right. While the right to bear arms is guaranteed, the privilege of having a weapon concealed on you, as earned through special restrictions, checks, and probably training is not. I admit that the distinction is slim, but there is one.

Obviously, there is already a problem with establishing rights in many areas, much less having the government honor those rights. The second amendment is one of the most trampled ones anyway.

 

[Goshin]

.. it's like Lay's potato chips for me.... one law is just not enough.

Damn, beat me to it.

 

[AGENT J]

DOMA

No question.

someone revived this thread and i started reading it . . .

so?


HOWS IT FEEL!!!!!!!!
:2party:

 

[Caine]

You've seized assets from people because it is your job. I'm not saying you're proud of all of those seizures, but nonetheless, it is your job.

You did receive profit off of it. You get a paycheck, right?

Police Pay is a BUDGETED item for any municipality. Asset forfeiture funds in North Carolina are controlled by the STATE, and thus are NOT a part of a municipalities Budget. Thus NOT a part of my paycheck.

One of my several jobs is at Lowe's, and Lowe's has people who they call "sales specialists." They are supposed to sell install jobs for projects in the customers' homes. They do not get commission for this, but they used to in the past before Lowe's removed commission. However, if they do not get enough installed sales to keep management happy, they do not get a paycheck anymore. That is the profit motive for them, and I think it is the same profit motive for you because if you did not do those seizures, you would probably run a risk of not getting more paychecks.

You are showing how little you know of how City/Local finances work in most areas of the U.S. I can't answer for everywhere, only in the state of which I worked.

This kinda makes me thing you are one of the QUOTA thinking people...

Just a little insight from North Carolina General Statues Chapter 20...

G.S. 20-187.3

 

[Hard Truth]

Funny... I've seized assets from people... yet I received no profit off of it. Where is this "profit motive" you speak of?

The assets shouldn't be officially seized until after a hearing has been conducted.
So...everyone is innocent?


The purpose of asset forfeiture is to REMOVE the profit security of those who earn money by violating the law.

Everyone should be treated as innocent until convicted. At least some asset seizure laws don't even require a hearing. There should be no punishment before a trial and conviction and seizures can interfere with being able to afford a good defense. Often the seizure punishment is out of proportion to the severity of the crime. It is not unusual for assets to be kept by the government despite an acquittal or dropped charges. The profit motive for seizures isn't usually for individuals, it is for the organizations (often the police) that get the cash or goods.

 

[joko104]

If you could change ONE existing law... which law would you change, and why?

I would eliminate civil asset forfeiture. Completely. Wipe it off the books. Why?

1. It's too easily and too often abused by those who utilize it, as it places a profit motive where none should be.
2. It completely ignores the concepts of "justice" and "innocent until proven guilty".
3. It unfairly and unjustly punishes people who are indeed innocent.

I agree 100%

 

[LowDown]

If you could change ONE existing law... which law would you change, and why?

I would eliminate civil asset forfeiture. Completely. Wipe it off the books. Why?

1. It's too easily and too often abused by those who utilize it, as it places a profit motive where none should be.
2. It completely ignores the concepts of "justice" and "innocent until proven guilty".
3. It unfairly and unjustly punishes people who are indeed innocent.

I agree with that, but I'd abolish all the enabling legislation for the EPA and replace it with something less anti-human. The whole thing is as rotten, radical, and corrupt as hell and we ought to just trash it.

In all the whole universe of American mal-governance there are people who think that DOMA is the most important? Man, narcissism really is the new normal.

If we are just going to be completely self absorbed here could we get rid of the income tax first? I mean, I'm pretty sure the members of the GLBT community have to pay income taxes, too.

 

[Paschendale]

Definitely all the routes to private campaign finance. More than anything else, that is what keeps our system corrupt. Everybody who's pissed at "government picking winners and losers", pissed at lobbyists, pissed at special interests, that's why. Because they can fund elections and decide who wins. If you want a government that is by, for, and of the people, you need to get the money out of elections.

 

[Slyhunter]

Nobody should automatically become a citizen from birth. Instead they should require at least a high school degree and a citizen test prior to becoming US citizens.

 

[TurtleDude]

If you could change ONE existing law... which law would you change, and why?

I would eliminate civil asset forfeiture. Completely. Wipe it off the books. Why?

1. It's too easily and too often abused by those who utilize it, as it places a profit motive where none should be.
2. It completely ignores the concepts of "justice" and "innocent until proven guilty".
3. It unfairly and unjustly punishes people who are indeed innocent.

16th Amendment

 

[Linc]

10th amendment

 

[cpwill]

Definitely all the routes to private campaign finance. More than anything else, that is what keeps our system corrupt. Everybody who's pissed at "government picking winners and losers", pissed at lobbyists, pissed at special interests, that's why. Because they can fund elections and decide who wins. If you want a government that is by, for, and of the people, you need to get the money out of elections.

As long as you legislate buying and selling, the first things bought and sold will be legislators. So long as we continue to have a government that intervenes in the market, there will simply be too much ROI for money not to seek to push the government to intervene in its' favor.



As for me, one law? I would ban abortion. For someone coming to this question from a pro-life position who believes than an unborn child is a child nonetheless, there simply isn't a moral tragedy that outweighs the slaughter of millions of innocents.


Beyond that? In order:

Healthcare Reform
Tax and Welfare Reform
Social Security Reform

 

[radcen]

10th amendment

Why bother? It's a;ready been gutted and is virtually ignored.

 

[Linc]

Why bother? It's a;ready been gutted and is virtually ignored.

I would argue just the opposite, as with all of the independent voting rights laws; or the social conservative laws we see making their way through the Courts; or the "50 ways to leave your lover", referring to 50 different laws on you name it, such as pollution control .

 

[Caine]

Everyone should be treated as innocent until convicted. At least some asset seizure laws don't even require a hearing. There should be no punishment before a trial and conviction and seizures can interfere with being able to afford a good defense. Often the seizure punishment is out of proportion to the severity of the crime. It is not unusual for assets to be kept by the government despite an acquittal or dropped charges. The profit motive for seizures isn't usually for individuals, it is for the organizations (often the police) that get the cash or goods.

And....These are criminals we are talking about. If the government doesn't seize the stuff before.... after the lengthy delays of standard court, this stuff won't exist anymore. They will liquidate it, spend it, hide it, etc.

I can't believe you can't see how obvious that is.