Denied! Judge Blocks New Florida Welfare Drug Testing Law

[Inthemiddle]

Where in the Constitution is the Right to Welfare?

I'm lost on your point, I could be misunderstanding you but if not you have shown some stupidity of epic proportions.

Where in your tiny little mind is your honesty? You know damn well that nobody is saying there's a constitutional right to welfare. You know damn well that the issue here is 4th amendment protections against searches without probable cause. If you don't have the honesty to actually discuss the issue on the table for what it is, then you don't have to bother saying anything in the first place, because anything that comes out of your mouth can only be, at best, assumed to be an ignorant lie, if not malicious.

 

[Katzndogz]

What happens to people that get benefits and take drugs is that they eventually tie the two together. They are getting paid for being addicts and have no incentive to clean up their act.

 

[Bass v 2.0]

I don't understand, why test for so called illegal drugs and let alcoholics get away with the same? because politicians are in cohoots with the makers of alcoholics beverages.

 

[The T]

I don't understand, why test for so called illegal drugs and let alcoholics get away with the same? because politicians are in cohoots with the makers of alcoholics beverages.

*Alcohol* is a Drug...or did that NEVER occur to you?

BACK to the drawing board with you.

 

[Inthemiddle]

*Alcohol* is a Drug...or did that NEVER occur to you?

BACK to the drawing board with you.

Yet a legal one. The point is that all of you opining that welfare recipients are using their benefits for, shall we say, bad habits, obviously don't seem to really care about the bad habits. This is just the latest battle in your wing-nut war against the poor.

BTW, I'm still waiting for someone to actually present evidence that what you're claiming is happening actually is happening. At best, you're arguing that the government has a right to launch a fishing expedition. And you are flatly wrong. But hey, why let facts get in the way of your wants, right?

 

[GoneBezerk]

You do not have a RIGHT to welfare handouts, it is a benefit given to people if the taxpayers through their elected officials allow it. The elected officials decided people taking HANDOUTS from other people need to prove they are not using that money for illegal activities.

End of debate, dumbfuck libs.

 

[Inthemiddle]

You do not have a RIGHT to welfare handouts

Straw man. Nobody said that. But you also know that. You just want to parrot the propaganda. Why let truth stand in the way? Now get back on topic of searches without probable cause.

The elected officials decided people taking HANDOUTS from other people need to prove they are not using that money for illegal activities.

1) On what basis do you even allege that any of these people are using that money for illegal activities? For all you know, the 0.05% of Floridians who applied for benefits after recent drug use traded sexual favors for those drugs. For all you know, they resorted to illegal behavior (theft) to fund other illegal behavior.

End of debate

Good, so we won't see you spewing anymore BS here, right?

dumbfuck libs.

Since when was there a correlation between defending constitutional liberties and being "dumbfuck libs"? There are plenty of people who more to the right of center, like myself, who value constitutional protections enough that they will still speak up against this unconstitutional law.

 

[CT9]

And people that live off of government bennies should also take drug tests....that would be you.

If they want us to take a drug test I have no problem with it. I have nothing to hide And when hubby was active duty they did do drug test on him all the time. He had to take a drug test to get his current job. If you have nothing to hide then why have a problem with it

Not good enough. If you believe you should have a drug test before getting your bennies you should ask your congresscritters to make it happen,

That's incredibly unreasonable and I doubt any logical person would do that. I'm not saying it would be wrong for them to be drug tested, but for them to petition for a drug test on themselves is illogical.

If you truly believe that, that reflects a lot on you. I'd call you a sophist.

Welfare is completely different than trying to get employment. Welfare is something you are not required to do, plenty of jobs don't drug test, so how about you apply at Mickey D's then.

I don't understand how any logical person can really oppose it and would go as far as to say something as dumb as what you just did.

 

[Bass v 2.0]

I don't understand, why test for so called illegal drugs and let alcoholics get away with the same? because politicians are in cohoots with the makers of alcoholics beverages.

*Alcohol* is a Drug...or did that NEVER occur to you?

BACK to the drawing board with you.

Too bad they're not denying welfare to alcoholics.

 

[Bass v 2.0]

You do not have a RIGHT to welfare handouts, it is a benefit given to people if the taxpayers through their elected officials allow it. The elected officials decided people taking HANDOUTS from other people need to prove they are not using that money for illegal activities.

End of debate, dumbfuck libs.

You have no proof most of the welfare money is going to drugs, which is why the 77 million dollar figure was bogus, the law was a waste of time to attempt to save money based on stereotypes.

 

[Inthemiddle]

That's incredibly unreasonable

But drug testing someone before they can receive government services, just because and absent any probable cause they are using drugs, is not unreasonable?

Welfare is completely different than trying to get employment. Welfare is something you are not required to do

Getting a job is not something you are required to do. Reporting your car stolen is not something you are required to do. Should we start drug testing people before they can report crimes to the police? We wouldn't want intoxicated people wasting taxpayer money with frivolous reports, would we?

I don't understand how any logical person can really oppose

Because logical people will demand that the government not overstep its constitutional limits by searching people without probable cause.

 

[CT9]

Where in the Constitution is the Right to Welfare?

I'm lost on your point, I could be misunderstanding you but if not you have shown some stupidity of epic proportions.

Where in your tiny little mind is your honesty? You know damn well that nobody is saying there's a constitutional right to welfare. You know damn well that the issue here is 4th amendment protections against searches without probable cause. If you don't have the honesty to actually discuss the issue on the table for what it is, then you don't have to bother saying anything in the first place, because anything that comes out of your mouth can only be, at best, assumed to be an ignorant lie, if not malicious.

OK well where I come from their are times when you waive the 4th amendment be it right or wrong.

When you are on government property, such as a school, they do not need probable cause for starters. What about locker searches in HS where they just go through lockers? That's legal? I seen them go into cars owned by parents of students for no reason, and it was legal because you are on their property.

It is practicability, it has nothing to do with the 4th Amendment. You are not to be incriminated on the search, you are merely going to be rejected from welfare benefits.

The 4th Amendment doesn't apply here... The Constitution, is what we call a living document. Not in the sense people can twist it around to mean what they want in certain times, in that precedents are established that show what is right and wrong because the Constitution covers such broad measures in sometimes vague language.

If you make a drug test mandatory for welfare it can easily be stipulated that one waives the 4th amendment even though it doesn't apply.

What about student athletes? They drug test them, in college and hs, they deserve to be drug tested for a recreational activity while these people can't be drug tested in receiving tax payer funds.

 

[GoneBezerk]

When you ask someone or the govt for a free handout, they have the right to put strings on that handout.

You don't have any right to make demands when you are begging for something, asshole.

You're lucky we don't make you clean the streets with your tongue to get your welfare check.

You do not have a RIGHT to welfare handouts

Straw man. Nobody said that. But you also know that. You just want to parrot the propaganda. Why let truth stand in the way? Now get back on topic of searches without probable cause.

The elected officials decided people taking HANDOUTS from other people need to prove they are not using that money for illegal activities.

1) On what basis do you even allege that any of these people are using that money for illegal activities? For all you know, the 0.05% of Floridians who applied for benefits after recent drug use traded sexual favors for those drugs. For all you know, they resorted to illegal behavior (theft) to fund other illegal behavior.

End of debate

Good, so we won't see you spewing anymore BS here, right?

dumbfuck libs.

Since when was there a correlation between defending constitutional liberties and being "dumbfuck libs"? There are plenty of people who more to the right of center, like myself, who value constitutional protections enough that they will still speak up against this unconstitutional law.

 

[CT9]

And no one is forced to submit to this search... you are sincerely twisting the 4th amendment here

One can easily walk away and not take the welfare because they don't want the drug test. That is the thing, by applying for welfare you are allowing the search.

Now if you do it afterwards and don't make it clear before hand perhaps you are right, but a law has to go into effect sometime. So give it a month or two so it is known before one applies for welfare and that eliminates that problem.

That's another aspect of the 4th Amendment you are neglecting. If you let them search you they can.... ever been involved with the cops before? Or at least watched it?

 

[GoneBezerk]

These libs think if they go up to their neighbor demanding some money, the neighbor shouldn't be allowed to say no or put strings on it....if they can get a judge to rule in their favor.

At the end of the day, why can't the state of Florida to just tell these people to get lost and quit asking for welfare? The taxpayers are sick of supporting your ass so get lost with or without a drug test, end of this mess.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Supporters say applicants skipped the test because they knew they would have tested positive for drugs.

Supporters are ignorant of the Constitution and its case law, it makes no difference how many people passed or failed the test, or why some elected to take the test or not, and the numbers don’t matter, either – all that matters is that this is an illegal preempting of 4th Amendment privacy rights where the state lacks a compelling reason to violate those rights.

Because the TPM governor and legislature want to ‘stick it to the poor’ is not a compelling governmental reason to violate privacy rights; that’s about politics, not law.

 

[jillian]

I love these people who didn't give a fuck about the Constitution until yesterday so they browsed it over and now they are experts.

that's funny coming from a pretend constitutionalist.

 

[CT9]

I love these people who didn't give a fuck about the Constitution until yesterday so they browsed it over and now they are experts.

that's funny coming from a pretend constitutionalist.

Oh yea what evidence do you have of that?

You're a joke, I'm not gonna respond to you because unlike TheMiddle, you have absolutely nothing to say

You just come a long and say something stupid, so until you start actually making valid points, don't expect a response from me anymore

Goodbye Bitch,

CT

 

[GoneBezerk]

You don't have a right to privacy in public matters. If you go out into the street demanding people/the Govt give you money, then they have the right to ask you why.

Also, there is no privacy protection with illegal activities. If the police think you are living in a crackhouse using your welfare checks to get the crack....they can and will bust down your door.

Supporters say applicants skipped the test because they knew they would have tested positive for drugs.

Supporters are ignorant of the Constitution and its case law, it makes no difference how many people passed or failed the test, or why some elected to take the test or not, and the numbers don’t matter, either – all that matters is that this is an illegal preempting of 4th Amendment privacy rights where the state lacks a compelling reason to violate those rights.

Because the TPM governor and legislature want to ‘stick it to the poor’ is not a compelling governmental reason to violate privacy rights; that’s about politics, not law.

 

[CT9]

That's incredibly unreasonable

But drug testing someone before they can receive government services, just because and absent any probable cause they are using drugs, is not unreasonable?

Look guy, if you seriously think telling someone to write congress and lobby them enough (which would take lots of calls and letters from multiple people) so they bring up legislation that will ultimately fail because of public unions, for them and their family to be drug tested - even though the family member who is employed is already being drug tested is not more unreasonable than stipulating a mandatory drug test for welfare.

You are seriously dumb.

So what is the difference between government employees being drug tested and this? Care to explain

How about you stop talking out your ass.... I edited out my insults from my last post event though u came off like an asshole because you brought up points, but that was ridiculous...