skullaria wrote:
Oh

Holy

Crap

Please tell me I'm not reading what I think I am reading.

If I pose a risk, he can seize everything I own. DId I take the wrong pill?

Did he just take a sharpie and blot out the 5th Amendment?

"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."

Nope, you're right. It's largely an extension of the drug forfeiture concept, and that one is a pile of crap too. I noticed this Thursday here.

It has been about 230 years since we had to deal with a George like this one. He doesn't care what people say now and says history will vindicate him. When history is done with him, he may well be unfavorably compared to such luminaries at Francisco Franco, Ferdinand Marcos and Benito Mussolini.

skullaria wrote:
Oh

Holy

Crap

Please tell me I'm not reading what I think I am reading.

If I pose a risk, he can seize everything I own. DId I take the wrong pill?

Did he just take a sharpie and blot out the 5th Amendment?

Yeah, that's basically how I read it too, unless you can contort your mind sufficiently to allow "due process of law" to be represented by "fiat of the Secretary of the Treasury or his delegates or assignees."

Don't be surprised when people make just such a contortion.