Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
I'm all for drug testing if it applies to judges, doctors, lawyers and every public employee and politician out there. Basically anyone who recieves public money of any kind whatsoever. Wow, that covers bankers and corporates too. Deal, I'm in if everyone getting public money of any kind is included.
1600 didn't fail the test, they refused it jackass, reading comprehension!
I think we should make Rick Scott submit to random pee tests. The guy is pretty batshit crazy and I have to wonder if drugs are contributing to that craziness.
At this point I think the whole group of GOP candidates should take one. They are all nuts!!
View attachment 15844
It is unconstitutional, that is all that matters......AF.I don't think it should be illegal. It is Gov't. money, they should have to follow certain guidlines. Besides, they are not being forced to take urine tests, it is a choice; test and pass or no money. They can choose not to test, but they get no money.Joe, find your supposed drug addicts in another way that is not unconstitutional.....
I am all for that.....
but that is not the argument here.....the argument is not, wanting or not wanting those who take illegal drugs to receive welfare....
the argument is whether our government can conduct an illegal search and seizure of the citizen's urine....without probable cause.
Where is the probable cause? Do you have proof that ALL recipients of welfare take illegal drugs? Is there anything that you have that should allow our gvt to take all welfare citizen's piss?
Again, where is the probable cause to allow this search and seizure of our gvt.?
Read the constitution.....that's what this is about....
I believe when it makes it through the courts, this WILL BE the results....unconstitutional to boot!
If you put America First, as your name implies, then you would join me in protecting our constitution. You can't let the "i don't want this and I don't want that" get in the way.....of standing by the constitution imo.
It's not like the government is busting into their homes and taking their wee-wee.
Quite right, Mad Hatter. It is out money. We earned it and the government takes us from us. Which means we have every right to insist that they aren't wasting it by subsidizing people's bad lifestyles...
One rightly assumes
they refused to take it because they knew they would not pass. Why else would anyone turn down free money?
As for "unconstitutional" that would depend on the state as this is a state issue.
And if one signs and agrees, in advance, to this "illegal" search wouldn't their consent void the word "illegal"?
As for "unconstitutional" that would depend on the state as this is a state issue.
Not true. A state law cannot violate the federal constitution.
No. The fourth amendment does not operate in such a way that the government can impose conditions that approximate compulsion. Fourth amendment rights do not operate strictly upon nominal conditions such as "consent," "under arrest," etc. The courts have long maintained that what determines the reasonableness of a search and/or seizure for 4th amendment purposes is the de facto situation. Nominal consent does not suffice, and when that consent is coerced in some means (such as promising something desirable in return) then the quid pro quo nature renders the situation non consensual de facto.And if one signs and agrees, in advance, to this "illegal" search wouldn't their consent void the word "illegal"?
Yes we should.Fla. should just stop handing out any form of welfare. That should cover the situation nicely.. and protect the taxpayers.
The bottom line, knucklehead, is they didn't pass the test. One rightly assumes they refused to take it because they knew they would not pass.
Why else would anyone turn down free money?
As for "unconstitutional" that would depend on the state as this is a state issue.
Not true. A state law cannot violate the federal constitution.
And if one signs and agrees, in advance, to this "illegal" search wouldn't their consent void the word "illegal"?
No. The fourth amendment does not operate in such a way that the government can impose conditions that approximate compulsion. Fourth amendment rights do not operate strictly upon nominal conditions such as "consent," "under arrest," etc. The courts have long maintained that what determines the reasonableness of a search and/or seizure for 4th amendment purposes is the de facto situation. Nominal consent does not suffice, and when that consent is coerced in some means (such as promising something desirable in return) then the quid pro quo nature renders the situation non consensual de facto.
Fla. should just stop handing out any form of welfare. That should cover the situation nicely.. and protect the taxpayers.
Fla. should just stop handing out any form of welfare. That should cover the situation nicely.. and protect the taxpayers.
maybe your medicare should be stopped?
go out and pay for your healthcare yourself.
not on my dime.
It's not like the government is busting into their homes and taking their wee-wee.
It doesn't have to be. The government is requiring an examination of one's bodily fluids. It is still a search of the most intrusive kind.
Quite right, Mad Hatter. It is out money. We earned it and the government takes us from us. Which means we have every right to insist that they aren't wasting it by subsidizing people's bad lifestyles...
Actually, no. The populace at large does NOT have a right to demand that the constitutional rights of certain people be infringed upon.
Fla. should just stop handing out any form of welfare. That should cover the situation nicely.. and protect the taxpayers.
maybe your medicare should be stopped?
go out and pay for your healthcare yourself.
not on my dime.
