"How is civil forfeiture(cash register justice) not a constitutional violation?"
It is. But you assume that laws cannot violate the constitution. They can and they do constantly, all the time. The constitution doesn't mean shit (I wanted to add "anymore", but from reading history, I'm not convinced it ever meant shit). That's just reality. It only means something when people in power want it to mean something. And yes, it's incredibly ironic that this is the exact system we had a revolution to get away from. Maybe not so much when you consider that a revolution is a 360 degree rotation that ends up in the exact same place. In that case, it probably isn't ironic that such programs had a huge resurgence under King George II (2000-2008), although had he been the third, the irony and historical allusion would have been even better.
As far as justice and rule by law in the US, I think it's time for us to accept reality, that the US "justice" system is beyond broken and unfixable. This simply isn't justice and most of what the system deals with is not either: it's the opposite. If we keep lying to ourselves that this is justice, we'll never be able to stop this horrific system that ruins millions of lives and creates such a terrified, divided society. Once you understand that there are no laws and no Constitution protecting you, that the gang in blue can do whatever the fuck they want and get away with it up to and including murder, shit gets a lot scarier. And no, you don't have to be a minority to see this reality.
Fatalists do the least. When you throw your hands up in resignation you're simply ceding the game to the ones you claim to hate. Life's hard, tough shit. Plenty of societies have been moved from within through citizen's actions. To imply that suddenly now it's harder than ever is narcissistic whining. There are a thousand people grinding right now to move the needle to green, and I bet not a single one of them asked for permission from "people in power".
I'm not trying to suggest that there's nothing that can be done, though I can see how you might interpret it that way, or that it's harder now than in the past, though I can't possibly see where you got that from. I'm simply saying that the "justice" system cannot be fixed without completely dismantling and replacing it, and that's not something you're going to do by changing a few laws or even releasing thousands of prisoners. Both are good ideas, but neither change the inherent injustices in our system of which there are way too many to even list. Plea bargains, mandatory minimums, criminalization of everyday activities, habeas corpus (or lack thereof), policing for money, prison officials that encourage rape and violence, racial profiling, different judicial outcomes based on wealth, police committing blatant murders without recourse or consequences, etc. are all huge problems in our current system and are not going to be fixed by a system that can't even ensure its basic principles (the constitution) is upheld.
I don't see it as "fatalist," at least not in a negative sense. It's quite possible that the average person does have effectively no control over policy, and that one's time is better spent directly making one's life as best as possible by fostering relationships, furthering one's career, enjoying hobbies and entertainment, etc.
And of course I don't think it's now harder than ever. I'm not sure where that notion came from.
That's why the US should have a Constitutional Court (even if it's "one-sided") the same way it allowed itself to have a one-sided secret spy Court. At least most of the unconstitutional bills would be filtered out then, before they ever become laws. Merely hoping to ban an unconstitutional law at the Supreme Court two decades after it passed doesn't sound very democratic or "justice-like" to me, but it seems to be the system Americans have allowed to exist.
Edit: I think the end of your comment was edited in. Regarding waiting, often it's because nobody considered it problematic at the time. Many rulings striking down laws are overturning previous rulings upholding those laws, and are rarely unanimous.
Find me a law that was overturned unanimously, would be struck down by any court looking at it, yet was both law and enforced for decades because nobody looked at it.
The Supreme Court cannot proactively take on an issue. Hacking around stuff like jurisdiction and standing is how obviously unconstitutional practices like what the NSA and various other agencies do are able to persist so long.
The Citizens United case in brief: The Supreme Court said that the Federal Elections Commission's attempt to censor a documentary about Hillary Clinton as an "electioneering communication" within x days of an election was a violation of the first amendment.
If you don't like the outcome in Citizens United, you've either been lied to about what the decision was or you believe that the first amendment doesn't apply to political speech when people organize together to speak it.
Anyone whose rights could conceivably be violated under some law has standing to challenge it.
"You have to bring the case" what's the alternative, that someone sues for every new law even if nobody thinks it's unconstitutional? Who exactly do we get to argue for outcomes nobody believes or wants? (Yes, lawyers will argue for things they don't believe, but somebody wants that outcome).
So if everyone likes a law, the best thing should be not to have a lawsuit. If someone doesn't like a law, then they can go ahead and sue.
Or do you want all laws to be delayed until pending lawsuits finish? But if a court agrees that you're very likely to prevail, they can issue an injunction to prevent the law from going into effect. Most laws have a waiting period before becoming law anyway.
Could you be very specific in which particular aspect of modern American jurisprudence you would abolish, what your justification for that is, and what you'd replace it with?
> Anyone whose rights could conceivably be violated under some law has standing to challenge it.
It is extremely difficult for an individual to bring a case before the court to challenge a law _without_ having that law being used against the same individual. You have to commit the crime and be charged using the law. That would give you standing.
The government can pass all the unconstitutional laws they want, which then get applied to people, if someone has the means to fight and win, then the law gets overturned. There is no lower or time limit to which laws can violate the constitution.
That's incorrect. For first amendment violations, everyone has standing, and for everything else, you only need to show that it will harm you, not that it's being used against you. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standing_(law)#Recent_developm... and the next two sections.
Why do you suppose that a constitutional court would rule with an interpretation of constitutionality similar to your own? Heck, I don't even see a good way to incentivize constitutional courts to rule honestly, even if the judges own beliefs about the constitution did match mine. Apart from individuals' own desires for power, there's really very little reason for branches of government to do anything other than collude.
> And yes, it's incredibly ironic that this is the exact system we had a revolution to get away from.
I don't know if that's the case. It seems to me that one plausible reading of the history of the United States is that the rich colonists ("founding fathers") wanted to make sure they had all the power they wanted over the new government.
It is. But you assume that laws cannot violate the constitution. They can and they do constantly, all the time. The constitution doesn't mean shit (I wanted to add "anymore", but from reading history, I'm not convinced it ever meant shit). That's just reality. It only means something when people in power want it to mean something. And yes, it's incredibly ironic that this is the exact system we had a revolution to get away from. Maybe not so much when you consider that a revolution is a 360 degree rotation that ends up in the exact same place. In that case, it probably isn't ironic that such programs had a huge resurgence under King George II (2000-2008), although had he been the third, the irony and historical allusion would have been even better.
As far as justice and rule by law in the US, I think it's time for us to accept reality, that the US "justice" system is beyond broken and unfixable. This simply isn't justice and most of what the system deals with is not either: it's the opposite. If we keep lying to ourselves that this is justice, we'll never be able to stop this horrific system that ruins millions of lives and creates such a terrified, divided society. Once you understand that there are no laws and no Constitution protecting you, that the gang in blue can do whatever the fuck they want and get away with it up to and including murder, shit gets a lot scarier. And no, you don't have to be a minority to see this reality.