Denied! Judge Blocks New Florida Welfare Drug Testing 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.

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

he's new here. i don't enable trolls and hacks like you by pretending you have something serious to say.

but i will tell you that you're a joke and make fun of you since that's all you rate.

 

[Inthemiddle]

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

Well, we're talking about here in America, where we understand that people have rights, and that those rights belong to those people, and our constitution demands that the government honor those rights, and where nobody is expected to waive their rights under the threat of negative consequences.

When you are on government property, such as a school, they do not need probable cause for starters.

The 4th amendment still applies.

What about locker searches in HS where they just go through lockers? That's legal?

It depends on the circumstances, if there exists a reasonable grounds for the search. The courts have hashed out 4th amendment rights repeatedly through history. There exists a balancing act that must be done, which weights the individual's right to privacy against the invasiveness of the search and other factors. You're essentially comparing apples to oranges on this one. There's also the additional stipulation of minor's rights, which are different at times than an adult's rights.

You should look up New Jersey v TLO (469 US 325) to get more information.

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.

It has everything to do with the 4th amendment. Not only can you be prosecuted, at least theoretically, but simple fact remains that it's the government conducting a search without any reasonable basis. Even in the above mentioned case the court noted that the school remains an agent of the state.

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

Funny, because it sounds like that's what you're doing.

precedents are established that show what is right and wrong because the Constitution covers such broad measures in sometimes vague language.

That has nothing to do with the "living constitution" doctrine. It has to do with the nature of our common law court system.

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.

1) It does apply.

2) Mandating that a person "waive" those rights does not resolve the constitutional defect. The courts have long been firm on the fact that this kind of scenario would be a de facto forced search.

What about student athletes? They drug test them, in college and hs,

*sighs* It is very clear that you have vastly ignorant on the 4th amendment and how it applies in a wide variety of ways. I suggest you get yourself educated thoroughly on it. To briefly answer your question, in public HS athletes the justification relies on a variety of things, including the aforementioned distinction of minors' rights, the aforementioned balancing test (there is a greater interest in athlete drug use because of the greater risk of such combination leading to potential injury), as well as application of the in loco parentis doctrine (which basically says that inasmuch as the school has custody of the child during school functions, the school has a certain degree of responsibility to act in the child's interest in similar ways as the [absent] parent).

With college athletes many of these issues also apply, with private schools adding an additional dynamic to the issue (since private schools are not agents of the government).

Just reading the Constitution doesn't mean you understand it. So save your high minded shit cause you are dumb as rocks in actuality...

Wow, that's amazing! You're the one who has an absolute lack of knowledge on the subject, and you're accusing me! This is better than Comedy Central!

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.

Good to know you love yourself. If you don't love yourself, how can anyone else love you?

 

[skookerasbil]

Geee.......its real tough to figure out who on this thread has no real responsibilities in life !!!

 

[The T]

Geee.......its real tough to figure out who on this thread has no real responsibilities in life and own nothing!!!

No shit bil...we see who the moochers are...or thier enablers.

 

[Inthemiddle]

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

No, I'm telling you exactly where the courts have religiously stood on such issues. Quid pro quo still violates the constitution. I cannot even count the number of times I've read cases of all kinds of nature where various justices have said that it's entirely repugnant to believe that the framers, in writing the constitution, intended it to be so weak in its protections that the government could manipulate those protections away with crafty maneuvering. That is one of the reasons why fruit of the poisoned tree doctrine applies, for example. And why the courts have rejected quid pro quo mechanisms by the government as alleviating it from de facto violations of the constitution.

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.

That would be a quid pro quo, and does NOT suffice as reasonable under the 4th amendment.

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.

No, it has to be struck down, because it's unconstitutional.

So give it a month or two so it is known before one applies for welfare and that eliminates that problem.

Quid pro quo does not eliminate the government's limitations to only conduct searches when there is probable cause.

That's another aspect of the 4th Amendment you are neglecting. If you let them search you they can.

And what you're ignorant to is the fact that "let them" cannot entail a quid pro quo, otherwise you didn't really "let" them. You were coerced into it.

ever been involved with the cops before? Or at least watched it?

Let's just say that I've spent more actual time in a court room arguing these things than you have.

 

[Inthemiddle]

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

One is an employment issue, the other is a denial of government services.

How about you stop talking out your ass.

I was about to say the same to you.

I edited out my insults from my last post event though u came off like an asshole

Why'd you even bother?

 

[WillowTree]

libtards can provide no rational reason why working American taxpayers should be forced to subsidize drug abusers. NONE.

 

[WillowTree]

You asswipe libtards cannot come up with a single plausible reason as to why the hard working taxpayer should subsidize someone's drug use.

Says the medicare recipient.

medicare isn't a hand out retard. I was forced to pay into the system.. so try again you big fat fuck of a fail.

 

[WillowTree]

You asswipe libtards cannot come up with a single plausible reason as to why the hard working taxpayer should subsidize someone's drug use.

So you agree that government contractors, Medicare recipients and all legislators should be drug tested as well?

Medicare forces the worker to pay into the system,, the dirt bag seeking assistance from the Florida tax payers was not forced to pay into the system. try again retard.

 

[CT9]

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

Well, we're talking about here in America, where we understand that people have rights, and that those rights belong to those people, and our constitution demands that the government honor those rights, and where nobody is expected to waive their rights under the threat of negative consequences.

When you are on government property, such as a school, they do not need probable cause for starters.

The 4th amendment still applies.



It depends on the circumstances, if there exists a reasonable grounds for the search. The courts have hashed out 4th amendment rights repeatedly through history. There exists a balancing act that must be done, which weights the individual's right to privacy against the invasiveness of the search and other factors. You're essentially comparing apples to oranges on this one. There's also the additional stipulation of minor's rights, which are different at times than an adult's rights.

You should look up New Jersey v TLO (469 US 325) to get more information.



It has everything to do with the 4th amendment. Not only can you be prosecuted, at least theoretically, but simple fact remains that it's the government conducting a search without any reasonable basis. Even in the above mentioned case the court noted that the school remains an agent of the state.



Funny, because it sounds like that's what you're doing.



That has nothing to do with the "living constitution" doctrine. It has to do with the nature of our common law court system.



1) It does apply.

2) Mandating that a person "waive" those rights does not resolve the constitutional defect. The courts have long been firm on the fact that this kind of scenario would be a de facto forced search.



*sighs* It is very clear that you have vastly ignorant on the 4th amendment and how it applies in a wide variety of ways. I suggest you get yourself educated thoroughly on it. To briefly answer your question, in public HS athletes the justification relies on a variety of things, including the aforementioned distinction of minors' rights, the aforementioned balancing test (there is a greater interest in athlete drug use because of the greater risk of such combination leading to potential injury), as well as application of the in loco parentis doctrine (which basically says that inasmuch as the school has custody of the child during school functions, the school has a certain degree of responsibility to act in the child's interest in similar ways as the [absent] parent).

With college athletes many of these issues also apply, with private schools adding an additional dynamic to the issue (since private schools are not agents of the government).

Just reading the Constitution doesn't mean you understand it. So save your high minded shit cause you are dumb as rocks in actuality...

Wow, that's amazing! You're the one who has an absolute lack of knowledge on the subject, and you're accusing me! This is better than Comedy Central!

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.

Good to know you love yourself. If you don't love yourself, how can anyone else love you?

I haven't looked it up, but I believe NJ vs TLO was an issue over a purse and not wide spread searches in which no one is singled out. However, that's quite irrelevant admittedly.

Anyways, its funny you give an example of one case you think will help you but can't of the other where the courts have been firm on the issue where if you submit to a search that makes it unconstitutional. If you can show me that I will by all means cede you are correct on that...

I have never heard that a consensual search is illegal, which would be the case here. You can revoke that consent, however, that wouldn't really do anyone any good.

 

[CT9]

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

One is an employment issue, the other is a denial of government services.

How about you stop talking out your ass.

I was about to say the same to you.

I edited out my insults from my last post event though u came off like an asshole

Why'd you even bother?

So now this goes back to the Constitution where is your right to welfare? Again there is none... People get denied government services for other reasons all the time, lack of funds, they don't qualify... I still fail to see the difference... But good job ducking that one.

And I doubt you are a lawyer, they are a little more clever than play this I know you are but what are you game. Or you are like Ted... But its cool perpetuate that to get others to buy into it, I still take what you say for a grain of salt.

 

[Inthemiddle]

libtards can provide no rational reason why working American taxpayers should be forced to subsidize drug abusers. NONE.

We subsidize yours. Give me one rational reason why we should.

Also, GIVE ME SOME FUCKING RATIONAL REASON TO EVEN BELIEVE THAT ANY SIGNIFICANT PORTION OF FL WELFARE APPLICANTS ARE DRUG ABUSERS. OTHERWISE SHUT UP AND GO SUCK ON YOUR ENTITLEMENT CHECK A LITTLE MORE.

 

[CT9]

libtards can provide no rational reason why working American taxpayers should be forced to subsidize drug abusers. NONE.

We subsidize yours. Give me one rational reason why we should.

Also, GIVE ME SOME FUCKING RATIONAL REASON TO EVEN BELIEVE THAT ANY SIGNIFICANT PORTION OF FL WELFARE APPLICANTS ARE DRUG ABUSERS. OTHERWISE SHUT UP AND GO SUCK ON YOUR ENTITLEMENT CHECK A LITTLE MORE.

Did you miss that, go take a ride through a city and you can see. I think a lot has to be done to fix Welfare and make it truly effective instead of nurturing dependency. Its not hard to get, the welfare.

 

[Full-Auto]

libtards can provide no rational reason why working American taxpayers should be forced to subsidize drug abusers. NONE.

We subsidize yours. Give me one rational reason why we should.

Also, GIVE ME SOME FUCKING RATIONAL REASON TO EVEN BELIEVE THAT ANY SIGNIFICANT PORTION OF FL WELFARE APPLICANTS ARE DRUG ABUSERS. OTHERWISE SHUT UP AND GO SUCK ON YOUR ENTITLEMENT CHECK A LITTLE MORE.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e6DlFehh0SQ&feature=player_embedded]Dirty Bastard on his way to pick up his welfare check.mpg - YouTube[/ame]



Did you miss that, go take a ride through a city and you can see. I think a lot has to be done to fix Welfare and make it truly effective instead of nurturing dependency. Its not hard to get, the welfare.

A family of 4 that makes 44k or less qualifies for welfare. For a family of 5 it goes to 52k

 

[WillowTree]

libtards can provide no rational reason why working American taxpayers should be forced to subsidize drug abusers. NONE.

We subsidize yours. Give me one rational reason why we should.

Also, GIVE ME SOME FUCKING RATIONAL REASON TO EVEN BELIEVE THAT ANY SIGNIFICANT PORTION OF FL WELFARE APPLICANTS ARE DRUG ABUSERS. OTHERWISE SHUT UP AND GO SUCK ON YOUR ENTITLEMENT CHECK A LITTLE MORE.

Shove it up your ass mofo. you don't subsidize jack shit for me.

 

[jillian]

libtards can provide no rational reason why working American taxpayers should be forced to subsidize drug abusers. NONE.

first you need to prove drug abuse is a problem before you violate people's rights.

for government to enact something of this nature, you have to prove a) there's a problem; and b) the solution is narrowly constructed to address that particular problem. then and only then can you infringe upon a fundamental right...

l

 

[WillowTree]

libtards can provide no rational reason why working American taxpayers should be forced to subsidize drug abusers. NONE.

first you need to prove drug abuse is a problem before you violate people's rights.

for government to enact something of this nature, you have to prove a) there's a problem; and b) the solution is narrowly constructed to address that particular problem. then and only then can you infringe upon a fundamental right...

l

you don't want to take a drug test? don't apply for welfare.

you don't want to be searched and seized? don't fly on an aeroplane.



it's just that simple. choose you right. it's up to you.

 

[Inthemiddle]

Anyways, its funny you give an example of one case you think will help you but can't of the other where the courts have been firm on the issue where if you submit to a search that makes it unconstitutional. If you can show me that I will by all means cede you are correct on that...

I have never heard that a consensual search is illegal, which would be the case here. You can revoke that consent, however, that wouldn't really do anyone any good.

I never said consensual searches were unconstitutional. I said that "consent" cannot be given under some kind of coercion, quid pro quo, etc. The circumstances of a "detention," a search, or "giving consent" cannot approach or approximate such conditions as to suggest or imply a mandate, or to promise anything favorable in return for the consent. When these things happen, the 4th amendment is not satisfied.

There is a case on the top of my head, though I'll have to see if I can dig it up and give you the name of the case. But basically, a suspected drug smuggler was approached by law enforcement, was asked he would talk with them for a few minutes, and then escorted to a room with a table. The police asked if th brief case he was carrying belonged to him, asked if he had the key to unlock it, asked if they could look inside, etc. They discovered drugs, but the SCOTUS ruled that the government did not have a constitutionally permissible grounds to execute a search on his nominal "consent" because the circumstances were de facto that of a forced search.

 

[CT9]

We subsidize yours. Give me one rational reason why we should.

Also, GIVE ME SOME FUCKING RATIONAL REASON TO EVEN BELIEVE THAT ANY SIGNIFICANT PORTION OF FL WELFARE APPLICANTS ARE DRUG ABUSERS. OTHERWISE SHUT UP AND GO SUCK ON YOUR ENTITLEMENT CHECK A LITTLE MORE.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e6DlFehh0SQ&feature=player_embedded]Dirty Bastard on his way to pick up his welfare check.mpg - YouTube[/ame]



Did you miss that, go take a ride through a city and you can see. I think a lot has to be done to fix Welfare and make it truly effective instead of nurturing dependency. Its not hard to get, the welfare.

A family of 4 that makes 44k or less qualifies for welfare. For a family of 5 it goes to 52k

I know all about Welfare, I grew up in a single parent home and they tried to get us on it at every option. Even just straight up mailed me the welfare card lol, I kept it just for the hell of it.

It's funny too, if you have to go to the state to get back child support their is a $25 or 50 fee, however, if you are on Welfare they wave it.

I think that illustrates perfectly how over reaching entitlements are killing peoples drive in the lower middle class. Their is no reason, you struggle and they punish you. You take the check they throw on more rewards... You have to be one strong individual to really work hard and turn down the hand outs for essentially nothing but your own pat on your back.

Most of these people on here don't know anything about that or welfare though and they just dismiss that as corny. Thats fine.... it reflects on them not me.

 

[Inthemiddle]

Shove it up your ass mofo. you don't subsidize jack shit for me.

In other words, you got nothing but neg repping me and your entitlement check. Get off your lazy ass and go earn your way.

What's the matter? You can dish it out to others but you can't take it, can you? Sucks when the shoe's on the other foot, eh? Welcome to the world you create with your irrational hatred.