krucam
Ultimate Member
Great call...
Protection against excessive fines has been a constant shield throughout Anglo-American history for good reason: Such fines undermine other liberties. They can be used, e.g., to retaliate against or chill the speech of political enemies. They can also be employed,not in service of penal purposes, but as a source of revenue. The historical and logical case for concluding that the Fourteenth Amendment incorporates the Excessive Fines Clause is indeed overwhelming.
Does the Gov have to give El Chapo his money back? Or can they still use it to build the wall.
This was a great Decision!!!!!
This is a great start but only a start. It still allows civil forfeitures, just not "excessive" ones, without definition. It remains a "we'll know it when we see it" thing as to what is excessive. The entire system of taking people's property before they're convicted of anything needs to go away.
(a) The Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause incorporates and renders applicable to the States Bill of Rights protections “fundamental to our scheme of ordered liberty,” or “deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and tradition.” McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U. S. 742, 767 (alterations omitted). If a Bill of Rights protection is incorporated, there is no daylight between the federal and state conduct it prohibits or requires. Pp. 2–3.