SCOTUS never endorsed this sort of taking, they said that it is not unconstitutional and (in this case) the defendants to not have the constitutional right to challenge it.
A constitutional amendment could trivially solve this (once you get it passed, which is highly nontrivial), while new legislation can solve it by either making such forfeitures (or asset freezes) illegal, or giving the defendants a legal (not constitutional) right to challenge it.
The example in the article seems like it violates both the 4th (being "unreasonable seizure") and the 5th (people being deprived of their property without due process). The government just confiscated everything from those people, expecting a conviction that would validate the confiscation.
Agreed. To me the explanations as to how this kind of forfeiture work just feel like absurd doublespeak to try and claim that the Fourth and Fifth somehow don't apply.
They failed to consider the rights of the accused to use their assets to choose their attorney (or pay one at all) as more important than the need of the state to preemptively foreclose the alleged artifacts of a crime. You can call it what you want, but I'm not sure we disagree, overall.
A constitutional amendment could trivially solve this (once you get it passed, which is highly nontrivial), while new legislation can solve it by either making such forfeitures (or asset freezes) illegal, or giving the defendants a legal (not constitutional) right to challenge it.