Ted Cruz: Republicans Have to Support Asset Forfeiture Reform
Says he can't back criminal justice reform for violent offenders.


Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) spoke to CPAC attendees after his speech. Asked by Reason about whether he would back criminal justice reform this Congressional session, Cruz explained that Democrats "lost" him on reform with their "focus" on violent criminal offenders. Cruz said he was on board for reforms for non-violent offenders, but that in his career he had seen too many violent offenders to back such more comprehensive reform.
Asked specifically about asset forfeiture reform, Cruz stressed that it was a "property rights issue" and so Republicans ought to support it. President Trump briefly brought asset forfeiture reform to the forefront of the news cycle two weeks ago at a "listening session" with law enforcement officials from the border area, when he off-handedly offered to destroy the career of a Texas state senator whose asset forfeiture reform efforts a Texas sheriff complained about. One senator who he may have meant, Republican Konni Burton, a leading advocate of asset forfeiture reform in the state senate, said she wouldn't let Trump's comments discourage her.
In recent years, Republicans have taken the lead on asset forfeiture reform, helping to pressure the Justice Department to reel back some of its participation with local agencies on forfeiture.
Despite Trump creating the opening for asset forfeiture to enter the public discourse just as the Senate considered asset forfeiture advocate Jeff Sessions for attorney general, Democrats and pro-reform Republicans like Cruz and Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul did not draw attention to Sessions' opposition to asset forfeiture reform and the disconnect between that and not only popular opinion but also trends within the Republican party.
Check out Reason TV on asset forfeiture reform below:
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
This guy should have run for president.
He didn't discover his Twitter game until too late.
His father killed JFK, don't you know.
And apparently had dozens of affairs. Because you know, women can't resist that Mr. Haney look.
I'll agree he is better than either of the choices we got, but couldn't we find a conservative Canadian WITH a personality to run instead?
As has been pointed out before, it is not theft when the government does it.
...I briefly considered hypothesizing a Cruz presidency, but I couldn't figure out what all the Trump protestors would be doing in that world. Trying to find Cruz's birth certificate? I know it's a low bar, but Cruz really isn't bad for a politician.
Trying to find Cruz's birth certificate?
Cruz birtherism was a real thing.
He's the real hitler and would usher in the 1000 year theocracy. And he eats babies I hear.
He's also the Zodiac Killer.
...Cruz stressed that it was a "property rights issue" and so Republicans ought to support it.
Ugh. Cruz is for it? It's doomed.
BURN!
Sick.
Good for Cruz in being for asset forfeiture reform.
Hopefully it's a start.
Ted Cruz: Republicans Have to Support Asset Forfeiture Reform
Yep, watch how fast they go now that Trump is in charge. Vrroom!
If we can end the drug war then civil asset forfeiture goes away for the most part, so with is harder to do, end/modify the drug war or end/modify civil asset forfeiture? Ideally, I'd like to see an end to the drug war first because of all the other associated problems that would be diminished (gangs, DEA, corruption of domestic and foreign governments, etc.), then modify civil asset forfeiture to so that the state would have to prove, after a conviction, that the assets were acquired through ill gotten means.
Regardless of who/what party is AG, president, or majority in congress I think the most likely avenue for reform of civil asset forfeiture laws will have to come from a SCOTUS ruling.
...so wich is harder to do...
Jesus wants dope-smoking criminals to burn in hell. You'll be lucky if the GOP doesn't extend NSA database-browsing privileges to your local PD.
Don't give them ideas!
I know someone who has known Cruz well for over a decade. He says Cruz is more Libertarian at heart than he feels he can let out publicly and still travel in lofty Republican circles.
Cruz is the only politician in my lifetime who's campaign rhetoric matched his actions to a tee once elected.
It appears Trump is trying but it's too soon to be sure.
Now that the election is over the pics of Cruz that Reason publishes don't appear quite so unflattering.
Funny that.
Mike Lee is pretty good
"when he off-handedly jokingly offered to destroy the career of a Texas state senator"
Come on. Trump is probably all wrong on this issue, but this again?
Like Obama joking about having the IRS target his enemies, it's not really funny when someone can do it (and has lackies who might not realize he's "joking")
Maybe it wasn't in good taste, but it was a joke, and characterizing it as otherwise is dishonest.
Personally I would like to see Teddy boy go hunting with Dicky boy Cheney. If Dicky is too busy I'd invite a couple of good old Texas boys named Walker Daugherty and Edwin Roberts. Remember them? They reported they were shot by illegal immigrants near the Texas border. They'll do in a pinch.
Civil asset forfeiture shouldn't even exist. Its an insult to property rights and natural law. Criminal forfeiture is fine. Civil? WTF