[avs733]

reasonable here could easily be aligned with, you know, having due process.

The constitution describes people's property and makes people subject to it. Suing a car or a pile of cash is farcical - because the constitution doesn't have authority over objects, it has authority over the people who own and possess the objects.

Its the same basic factual explanation as to the difference between two consenting adults and adults and children/animals that seems to befuddle those who don't like gay rights.

[mlyle]

> because the constitution doesn't have authority over objects

First, the overwhelming majority of civil forfeiture happens in states, where a mere claim of the constitution not explicitly giving the federal government authority doesn't hold water (or invoke the incorporation doctrine).

Second, Federal courts have long exercised authority over objects and courts having authority over objects is something that is broadly considered constitutional.

> Suing a car or a pile of cash is farcical

It may seem farcical, but it has a decent legal basis and a reasonable reason for existance: there are times that property seems to A) be involved in crime, and B) unclaimed by owners. E.g. distant shipowners engaged in smuggling. It seems reasonable for the government to seize the property in these cases.

It's much more problematic when a clear owner can be identified (or, when an owner comes forward after seizure). I agree in those circumstances action should be brought against the people, and should require a higher standard than the preponderance of the evidence, for property to be kept.

> Its the same basic factual explanation as to the difference between two consenting adults and adults and children/animals that seems to befuddle those who don't like gay rights.

I don't quite see the connection.