APP - Another Welfare Drug Test, Another Failure

[USFREEDOM911]

requiring paperwork like identification for government benefits makes sense, however, having to prove you're NOT a criminal before qualifying for a government benefit goes against every idea of freedom ever. so no, it is still a violation of the 4th Amendment.

Using controlled substances, do not make someone a criminal.
Using hem illegally make someone a criminal.
Requiring a drug test is a safety issue and no one is being forced to apply for the benefits.

 

[USFREEDOM911]

there's a big difference between a benefit and a job, but I still don't believe that applying for a government job allows the government to force you to prove you're not a criminal before you get the job.

Whether you agree with it or not, matters very little; because it is a requirement and probably isn't going to change very soon.
It's a safety issue.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

Using controlled substances, do not make someone a criminal.
Using hem illegally make someone a criminal.
Requiring a drug test is a safety issue and no one is being forced to apply for the benefits.

there is no safety issue involved in regards to benefits. It doesn't matter if nobody is being forced to apply, it's still an unreasonable search according to the courts because simply applying for benefits doesn't give rise to reasonable suspicion.

 

[USFREEDOM911]

there is no safety issue involved in regards to benefits. It doesn't matter if nobody is being forced to apply, it's still an unreasonable search according to the courts because simply applying for benefits doesn't give rise to reasonable suspicion.

They can refuse to comply with the requirement(s) and not apply.
No one is being forced to apply.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

They can refuse to comply with the requirement(s) and not apply.
No one is being forced to apply.

irrelevant when it comes to the 4th amendment. the government doesn't get to force someone to prove they are not a criminal.

 

[USFREEDOM911]

irrelevant when it comes to the 4th amendment. the government doesn't get to force someone to prove they are not a criminal.

The Government also isn't forcing them to apply for or to accept welfare.
Why should I be forced to be an enabler for someone who's using drugs?

 

[SmarterthanYou]

The Government also isn't forcing them to apply for or to accept welfare.
Why should I be forced to be an enabler for someone who's using drugs?

the government should not then be affording the benefit, since they are restricted by the 4th Amendment with no reasonable suspicion.

 

[USFREEDOM911]

the government should not then be affording the benefit, since they are restricted by the 4th Amendment with no reasonable suspicion.

Different argument, for a different thread.

 

[zappasguitar]

So because it was a small amount in two states, means that it's always going to be a small amount??

The statistical probability is fairly high.

 

[zappasguitar]

Changing the subject again? Who says I support comprehensive gun control? I simply support Toomey/Manchin.

You have really got him on the ropes tonight.

What is this, the third time he's tried to change the subject now in the same thread?

 

[zappasguitar]

They can refuse to comply with the requirement(s) and not apply.
No one is being forced to apply.

Doesn't matter.

Forcing welfare recipients to take a drug test before getting benefits works from a PRESUMPTION OF GUILT.

Something that we don't do in this country.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

Different argument, for a different thread.

not really. the government has no authority to require a search for anyone not suspected of committing a crime, even when it concerns applying for a gov benefit. If you don't like not being able to force people to submit to searches, get rid of the benefit.

 

[USFREEDOM911]

not really. the government has no authority to require a search for anyone not suspected of committing a crime, even when it concerns applying for a gov benefit. If you don't like not being able to force people to submit to searches, get rid of the benefit.

Let me know when they stop using DUI checkpoints, check points for commercial trucks, etc.

Your last sentence is a topic for another thread.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

Let me know when they stop using DUI checkpoints, check points for commercial trucks, etc.

you're confusing two topics, it seems. though I agree that DUI checkpoints are violations (even rehnquist agreed, though he decided that those violations were worth it), commercial trucks are the essence of commerce, therefore allowed.

Your last sentence is a topic for another thread.

they are ultimately linked, unless you choose to ignore the constitution. something you seem to be willing to do all too often.

 

[USFREEDOM911]

you're confusing two topics, it seems. though I agree that DUI checkpoints are violations (even rehnquist agreed, though he decided that those violations were worth it), commercial trucks are the essence of commerce, therefore allowed.

they are ultimately linked, unless you choose to ignore the constitution. something you seem to be willing to do all too often.

But aren't DUI check points and commercial check points maintained under the premise of automatic guilt?

So now you have decided that since you can't justify your exclusion of drug testing, it has to be because I'm ignoring the constitution; or at least your own interpretation of it.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

But aren't DUI check points and commercial check points maintained under the premise of automatic guilt?

you're still confusing two topics. DUI checkpoints DO operate under the presumption of guilt and are therefore unconstitutional. The fact that an activist supreme court excuses the violation doesn't make it constitutional. commercial checkpoints are regulatory in nature due to the element of commerce.

So now you have decided that since you can't justify your exclusion of drug testing, it has to be because I'm ignoring the constitution; or at least your own interpretation of it.

you are making an assumption without any clear evidence. the constitution, law, and court precedent is all the justification I need.

 

[zappasguitar]

But they can still acquire cigarettes, alcohol, and drugs.

And felons can still acquire guns despite numerous laws that say otherwise.

 

[USFREEDOM911]

you're still confusing two topics. DUI checkpoints DO operate under the presumption of guilt and are therefore unconstitutional. The fact that an activist supreme court excuses the violation doesn't make it constitutional. commercial checkpoints are regulatory in nature due to the element of commerce.

you are making an assumption without any clear evidence. the constitution, law, and court precedent is all the justification I need.

Why have commercial check points, unless you feel that commercial vehicles are guilty of something; ie: presumption of guilt.

And you have none of the things you mentioned, except in your fevered mind.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

Why have commercial check points, unless you feel that commercial vehicles are guilty of something; ie: presumption of guilt.

so you're unable to determine the difference between criminal and regulatory. all you had to say.

 

[Big Money]

Doesn't matter. Forcing welfare recipients to take a drug test before getting benefits works from a PRESUMPTION OF GUILT. Something that we don't do in this country.

Hmmm, check my sig quotes.