Ah. Well, if we do not, that simplifies things greatly.

So, a law that allows for the killing of individuals on the spot would then be a legitimate right of a state?

Due process

And would not be in conflict with the 14th amendment.

So, an individual kills himself, there is no problem with due process.

An individual kills another, and suddenly there is a problem with due process?

Why is that?

Because you can't prosecute a dead person.

Ah, so you admit they are breaking the law. It is simply impossible to punish them for it.

Sure.

So, allowing for assisted suicide *is* a breach of the 14th amendment.

I'll see where this leads

_Where is it written in the Constitution that we have a "privilege to life"?_
As far as I know it is not written in the constitution, but the Declaration of Independence.
_life, liberty and pursuit of happiness...._

If there is no law against suicide, I'm still not sure how we can say due process was violated

Murder being the unlawful killing of a human being with intent beforehand.

Thus, there is no legal divide between suicide and murder.

That is determioned by the wording of the statute

Wait, so an attempted suicide is attempted murder?

So, if suicide is legal, then a man may kill himself without concern for due process?

I would say yes.

Then, if murder is legal, a man may kill another man without concern for due process.

I'm curious to see where you take this next. I won't bite but for sake of argument let's just suppose I did for entertainment value.

Laws must be applied equally and with logical consistency. Anything less is corruption and a breakdown of governance.

I'll agree to that

*looks around waiting for the trap to go off*

There is no trap, Cat. All I'm trying to do is to understand to the best of my ability and try to help others do the same.

Oh, cool. I like those debates. 😃

Debate discord
https://discord.gg/83jUmx

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/civil-forfeiture-makes-law-enforcement-lawless-the-supreme-court-could-change-that/2018/11/23/1ca778a2-ef51-11e8-96d4-0d23f2aaad09_story.html?utm_term=.3245cf0bac3e

I personally detest civil forfeiture. It's a conflict of interest. If you must do it, the money should go to state coffers and totally bypass local government. Is there actually any debate here on this topic? I'm just curious.

Seems like a topic where right and left may actually agree.

Tbh I think that if your selling drugs out of your car, your license should be permanently revoked

Beyond what jail time you get

License, yeah. But your property? These laws have been used to take the houses of parents whose kids were selling drugs against their will or without their knowledge.

Your clearly a danger to others cause they could drive high

People drive without licenses all the time

https://www.cnn.com/2014/09/03/us/philadelphia-drug-bust-house-seizure/index.html

https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/son-is-busted-for-drugs-but-its-mom-and-dad-who-lose-the-cars/

Well, there are situations like that, but a home is different from a car

The question before the court will be if such automatic seizures that then directly benefit local government should be protected from the Constitutional prohibition against disproportionate fines

Or whether this practice is unconstitutional based on the 8th