zlacker

>>lpolov+(OP)
Call your representatives. Demand qualified immunity (and civil forfeiture) be eliminated.

>>hedora+Y4
It cannot be eliminated by legislation. It arises from a SCOTUS decision, and can only be undone by them (at least in the broadest sense).

>>PaulDa+b8
That's not how this works. Laws can absolutely be changed; in the case of a SCOTUS decision, that's what constitutional amendments are for.

>>stonog+49
As you may have noticed, whether by design or social context or both, constitutional amendments are essentially impossible to pass.

>>PaulDa+Tl
What I've noticed is that we have nearly thirty of them, and two of them were passed in my lifetime.

>>stonog+7z
The timeline looks like this:

http://www.paufler.net/brettrants/161_amendments_graphs.html

I wouldn't consider that indicative of the ease of passing an amendment. Perhaps you do. It appears to require an increasingly-hard-to-get combination of (1) widespread agreement that a problem requiring an amendment exists and (2) widespread agreement on what the nature of the amendment should be.