Supreme Court Places Limitations on Excessive Fines for Those Convicted, Accused of Crimes. They used the 14th Amendment. We wonder how this will affect the red flag seizure laws that can take guns away from citizen without due process?

“As it did in earlier cases applying parts of the Bill of Rights to the states, the court based its decision on the part of the 14th Amendment that says “no state shall deprive any person of life, liberty or property without due process of law.” 

Thomas said he would have relied on the Constitution’s language forbidding states from making or enforcing “any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States.” (5th Amendment)

Justice Neil Gorsuch also expressed his preference for the privileges or immunities clause.

Leave a Reply

Please Login to comment
2 Comment threads
1 Thread replies
Most reacted comment
Hottest comment thread
3 Comment authors
whiskeyriverNot so silentStrinaM Recent comment authors

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Notify of

Most of the time people accused of crimes don’t have the money to pay the fines anyway so that is a waste of time. A fraud gets 3 years in prison and fined $500,000 in restitution for his victims. The frigging fool doesn’t have half a million and never will have so what is the use of ordering him to pay restitution? It’s stupid and the courts cannot enforce it anyway.


You know why the liberals on the court signed onto this right? It’s so Ted Cruz can’t take El Chapo’s money for the wall.

Not so silent
Not so silent

Well El Chapo has been convicted. They could legally seize his assets. If he had Not been convicted they could not touch them. That is the way the law originally was till law enforcement got greedy and started taking all kinds of stuff and keeping it. In this case the U.S. Government prosecuted him, and could seize his money…And I hope like hell they take everything he has.