Florida requires drug testing for welfare starting July 1st.

[Empty Hands]

I can't wait until the next thread about some government incursion that doesn't only affect poor people when many of you will be furious at the intolerable loss of freedom our government has perpetrated.

4th Amendment. Look into it.

 

[Sensei Payne]

I can't wait until the next thread about some government incursion that doesn't only affect poor people when many of you will be furious at the intolerable loss of freedom our government has perpetrated.

4th Amendment. Look into it.

The Patriot Act has suspended the constitution!

Naked Body Scanners
Warrentless Searchs and Wire tapping
----->TSA, Boarder Patrol, etc


Its all an enfringement on our Rights as Americans. My Senator Rand Paul, was fight tooth and nail to at least get provisions added to the Patriot Act to get a timeline put on it, and limit its powers...but to no avail. Even the so called Tea Partiers Voted it back in!

Here is a list of all the folks up there on the hill of who voted for what on the Patriot act

http://educate-yourself.org/cn/patriotact20012006senatevote.shtml
http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2011/roll026.xml
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/05/26/patriot-act-extension-passes-senate_n_867736.html

 

[CoryKS]

While I agree with this in theory, I'm sure it will work about as well as every other drug-related law. Those who are intent on getting over can be very creative and industrious in their methods.

 

[RandomPhantom700]

At first blush, I'd agree with the law as a matter of principle. Government support shouldn't be used to fund illegal activities, and drug testing isn't itself a violation of privacy or due process.

Looking between the lines, though, I think this is just an attempt to get rid of welfare recipients as a political goal, and drug-testing was the vehicle of choice because it'd make opponents look like drug-use advocates.

We shall see how it turns out.

 

[punisher73]

I can't wait until the next thread about some government incursion that doesn't only affect poor people when many of you will be furious at the intolerable loss of freedom our government has perpetrated.

4th Amendment. Look into it.

Welfare was set up to help someone TEMPORARILY while they got back up on their feet. It was not set up to be a lifestyle. I have to be drug tested for my job and paycheck, why shouldn't other people as well when they want free money?

This is not about a "poor people" thing. This is about people taking advantage of a system that was designed to help people. One of my good friends worked in the welfare field here in Michigan. At the time there were no cut offs on welfare, I asked her if they capped it at 5 years what would happen. Her response was that her caseload and her fellow caseworkers would go from around 125 cases per case worker to around 10-15 cases!

4th Amendment look into it? Do you even know what the 4th amendment refers to? It is about illegal searches and seizures by police. Please read through that and tell me where it states that the government can not control and regulate social welfare programs, in fact, please tell me where in the Constitution or Bill of Rights it spells out welfare being one of the rights given to citizens.

Amendment 4 - Search and Seizure

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

 

[CoryKS]

I can't wait until the next thread about some government incursion that doesn't only affect poor people when many of you will be furious at the intolerable loss of freedom our government has perpetrated.

4th Amendment. Look into it.

How the hell does government incursion even enter into this? They're applying rules to getting government relief, not coming to your door (although, they do that too).

The only incursion involved here is the government rifling through our pockets to pay for these programs.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

Hell, lets go a step further. In addition to drug testing before one can receive welfare benefits, recipients should also be made to preform community service and attend a training program to help them obtain some type of job skill. Lots of trash to pick up on the side of our roads. Being poor doesn't give someone the right to sit on their lazy asses all day watching Maury and smoking Newports.

Why don't we make them wear signs on their clothing, like a big yellow patch or something, so everyone knows they are a Welfare recipient?

 

[Big Don]

Why don't we make them wear signs on their clothing, like a big yellow patch or something, so everyone knows they are a Welfare recipient?

I'm sorry, are criminals an ethnicity now?

 

[CoryKS]

Why don't we make them wear signs on their clothing, like a big yellow patch or something, so everyone knows they are a Welfare recipient?

Thread Godwined. Last person out please turn the lights off.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

4th Amendment look into it? Do you even know what the 4th amendment refers to? It is about illegal searches and seizures by police. Please read through that and tell me where it states that the government can not control and regulate social welfare programs, in fact, please tell me where in the Constitution or Bill of Rights it spells out welfare being one of the rights given to citizens.

The Welfare Reform Act allowed, but did not require, states to implement drug testing as a pre-condition to receiving Welfare. The only state that attempted it previously was Michigan. That law was struck down in 2000 as unconstitutional, based on 4th Amendment protections against 'unreasonable search' in that the Welfare recipient was being searched unreasonably. The court's ruling was upheld in 2003, and that was the end of it in Michigan.

So...

The state governments were given explicit permission to implement drug testing for Welfare recipients. The one court result to date held that it was a violation of 4th Amendment rights.

The answer to your questions are a) yes, I know what the 4th Amendment is; b) yes, the states have the right to regulate Welfare in this way; c) so far, the courts have indeed held that there is a 4th Amendment issue involved, and d) The Constitution and Bill of Rights do not 'give' rights to citizens. They deny the federal government the right to infringe on specific rights, but they don't 'give' rights to citizens. If you do not understand that, you do not understand the Constitution.

Welfare was indeed considered a 'right' until President Clinton's administration redefined it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Welfare#United_States

It is, however, considered an entitlement. That means that if a person qualifies for it, they can't be denied it, which is very similar to a right. If it were not such, then states could refuse Welfare to whomever they liked, such as black people, or Jews, or unmarried couples, or etc, etc, etc.

I am not saying I am a fan of Welfare. But I think a lot of people who talk about it don't really understand what it is, how it works, or what rights citizens have.

As much as I understand the desire to make sure that people who receive Welfare are actually a) deserving and b) going to try to get off Welfare by finding work, I am unwilling to cast aside civil liberties in order to do so. It saddens me that both conservatives and liberals are quite often more than willing to wipe their butts with the Constitution when the outcome is something they desire to see.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

I'm sorry, are criminals an ethnicity now?

Just following this to its logical conclusion. If the goal of Welfare is to identify and shame them by forcing them to pick up trash by the side of the road like prisoners, we should probably go the extra step of providing them signs to wear so passing motorists know the difference between them and convicts laboring in similar conditions.

I get the concept of wanting to encourage people to get off Welfare. I doubt if forcing them to perform menial public tasks in public view so that they can be 'named and shamed' is going to accomplish that, but I'm sure it makes a lot of angry people very happy.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

How the hell does government incursion even enter into this? They're applying rules to getting government relief, not coming to your door (although, they do that too).

The only incursion involved here is the government rifling through our pockets to pay for these programs.

http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=13040978699174765839&hl=en&as_sdt=2&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr

Tanya L. MARCHWINSKI, Terri J. Konieczny, and Westside Mothers, on behalf of all similarly situated persons, Plaintiffs,
v.
Douglas E. HOWARD, in his official capacity as Director of The Family Independence Agency of Michigan, a Governmental Department of the State of Michigan, Defendant.

No. 99-10393. United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Northern Division.
September 1, 2000.

Plaintiffs Tanya Marchwinski, Terry Konieczny and Westside Mothers filed their Complaint on September 30, 1999, alleging that the Family Independence Program ("FIP") drug testing requirement violates the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution. Plaintiffs bring this action on their own behalf and on behalf of a class of all adult residents of Michigan whose ability to receive FIP benefits is or will be conditioned on their willingness to submit to drug testing.[1]

The plaintiffs won their case and the subsequent appeal, and the law was struck down in Michigan. It was a Fourth Amendment case, as noted above. "Unreasonable search and seizure" is the affected clause.

 

[Big Don]

Just following this to its logical conclusion. If the goal of Welfare is to identify and shame them by forcing them to pick up trash by the side of the road like prisoners, we should probably go the extra step of providing them signs to wear so passing motorists know the difference between them and convicts laboring in similar conditions.

I get the concept of wanting to encourage people to get off Welfare. I doubt if forcing them to perform menial public tasks in public view so that they can be 'named and shamed' is going to accomplish that, but I'm sure it makes a lot of angry people very happy.

Black and white stripes are out of style?

 

[Bill Mattocks]

Black and white stripes are out of style?

Another option, it seems. So long as the intent is clear - we want people on Welfare to be publicly shamed for being recipients of public assistance, right?

 

[Bob Hubbard]

It's not "menial tasks to shame them". it's honest fricken work. Or should I feel like a criminal when I sweep up the street in front of my house?

Every city and town has areas that need some attention. Switch to workfare instead of welfare, and require that those getting the government money, as long as they are fit and able, show up and put some hours in. Sweep the streets, pick up the trash, go around to old folks houses with lawn mowers and weed wackers and help them keep their yards looking decent. In the winter, sidewalks and driveways need snow shoveled and ice removed.

How far we have fallen that honest work is seen as 'shameful'.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

It's not "menial tasks to shame them". it's honest fricken work. Or should I feel like a criminal when I sweep up the street in front of my house?

Every city and town has areas that need some attention. Switch to workfare instead of welfare, and require that those getting the government money, as long as they are fit and able, show up and put some hours in. Sweep the streets, pick up the trash, go around to old folks houses with lawn mowers and weed wackers and help them keep their yards looking decent. In the winter, sidewalks and driveways need snow shoveled and ice removed.

How far we have fallen that honest work is seen as 'shameful'.

The recommendation was to pick up trash by the side of the road. I was responding to this: "Lots of trash to pick up on the side of our roads."

As to workfare itself - it exists.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Welfare-to-work

The state of Michigan requires it, as do many others:

http://www.michigan.gov/mdcd/0,1607,7-122-1679_1822---,00.html

People who rail against Welfare are commonly unfamiliar with what it is or how it works. They just have the notion of people "smoking Newports" (by the way, how is that not an ethnic commentary?) and "watching Maury."

Before being against something, perhaps it would be good to know what it is one is against. Just sayin'...

And yes, I'm not a fan of Welfare. I'm just a bigger fan of the Constitution, and not so much into shaming people who receive public assistance, and yes, I think that's a component of the anger people who are 'against lazy bums getting Welfare' think should happen.

 

[Empty Hands]

Bill said all I would have said and more, thank you Bill.

To that I will add though that the concept of "voluntary" actions that involve the loss of rights is a troubling path to justify. That precise concept has given us the TSA and the unlicensed ability for private workers to search and detain all and sundry without cause or justification all because we "choose" to enter an airport.

When you get right down to it, nearly everything we do is "voluntary". Ride a bus, take a train, get a loan, enter a public building or accommodation...everything that happens after you leave your house, essentially. This justification is simply a means for the government to abrogate all of our rights whenever they feel like it, with this flimsy excuse as justification. It is obviously contrary to the intent of the 4th, no matter what the courts may say. Sure, you may not like poor people abusing your money (which is why I pointed out all the other means that people get your precious tax money), but is it really worth sacrificing all of our liberty to fight it?

 

[Bob Hubbard]

If I have to take and pass said test as a condition of employment, so should someone who is going to get free money.
If 1 is unconstitutional, then both are.

 

[MJS]

And so it has begun.
I am sure lawsuits will be filed, and I am sure there will be screams from both ends of the spectrum in regards to this issue. Where do you stand?

http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2011/06/0...-requiring-drug-tests-for-welfare-recipients/

Good! Its about time they started cracking down on the people who are on welfare. If we're lucky, more requirements will be put into place. Slightly off topic, but just today, in the paper, I was reading about a family who was living in disgusting conditions, total filth! The kids were taken away, Thank God, and the parents arrested. The article said that the wife, only showed any sort of emotion, when she heard that the $654/month is state aid, was being taken away from her.

So, to her and all the other people out there that dont use the money for what it should be used for, I say good, let this serve as a lesson to you!

In case anyone noticed, the welfare topic is one that always gets under my skin. LOL. Why? Let me be clear...I'm not against the state helping anyone who needs it. But, there needs to be a line drawn, limits put on, etc. In other words, welfare, IMO, isn't a life long free ride. Unless you have no arms or legs, then get your *** out there and get a damn job! Get your *** out there and do community service! Do something, and yes, theres things to do. If you're gonna get aid, you should be under strict guidelines.

 

[punisher73]

The Welfare Reform Act allowed, but did not require, states to implement drug testing as a pre-condition to receiving Welfare. The only state that attempted it previously was Michigan. That law was struck down in 2000 as unconstitutional, based on 4th Amendment protections against 'unreasonable search' in that the Welfare recipient was being searched unreasonably. The court's ruling was upheld in 2003, and that was the end of it in Michigan.

So...

The state governments were given explicit permission to implement drug testing for Welfare recipients. The one court result to date held that it was a violation of 4th Amendment rights.

The answer to your questions are a) yes, I know what the 4th Amendment is; b) yes, the states have the right to regulate Welfare in this way; c) so far, the courts have indeed held that there is a 4th Amendment issue involved, and d) The Constitution and Bill of Rights do not 'give' rights to citizens. They deny the federal government the right to infringe on specific rights, but they don't 'give' rights to citizens. If you do not understand that, you do not understand the Constitution.

Welfare was indeed considered a 'right' until President Clinton's administration redefined it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Welfare#United_States

It is, however, considered an entitlement. That means that if a person qualifies for it, they can't be denied it, which is very similar to a right. If it were not such, then states could refuse Welfare to whomever they liked, such as black people, or Jews, or unmarried couples, or etc, etc, etc.

I am not saying I am a fan of Welfare. But I think a lot of people who talk about it don't really understand what it is, how it works, or what rights citizens have.

As much as I understand the desire to make sure that people who receive Welfare are actually a) deserving and b) going to try to get off Welfare by finding work, I am unwilling to cast aside civil liberties in order to do so. It saddens me that both conservatives and liberals are quite often more than willing to wipe their butts with the Constitution when the outcome is something they desire to see.

My point exactly, you have liberal courts that redefine things to make it fit. I remember the case and thought it was a load of bullock then and still do. I would have liked to have seen the issue pushed higher up with the federal statute, and at the very least redefine it to make it pass.

How many here had to take a drug test for employment? Almost all of the businesses in our city require it, from government positions to factory workers. How is it any different?