Let me get this straight.

[Inthemiddle]

You're an idiot

I can see that from the get-go you don't seem to have much intellectual fuel for your fires.

and turn off the moveon.org talking points bullshit.

It would seem that you don't know the difference between "talking points bullshit" and case law.

How a judge with an IQ over 6 possibly connected the 4th amendment to a non-right such as welfare is laughable. Any constitutional lawyer would laugh after hearing this. A person does NOT have a right to welfare, they do not have to accept a drug test if they choose not to accept welfare.

I guess you haven't been paying attention. Funny, how you call me an "idiot" yet have not been paying attention, or are simply too idiotic to "get it." I'll repeat, NOWHERE is anyone saying there is a constitutional right to welfare. That's not the issue here. We're talking about FOURTH AMENDMENT RIGHTS that protect us all against searches without probable cause.

Now, if you can't understand the difference between welfare and searches without probable cause, then don't bother replying to anything, just go back to 1st grade.

I do not have a RIGHT to a driver's license, if I want to have one I have to pass a test. If I do not want to deal with the test, I cannot get a driver's license, real fucking simple.

The driving test is not a search. Are you incapable of understanding the difference?

This whole fucking nonsensical house of cards the asshole judge set up has no chance of surviving.

Why are you so mad? All the judge has done is executed a standard procedural step for when a case like this comes up.

All states will have laws on the books with drug testing within 36 months - FACT.

Prove it.

 

[Inthemiddle]

Another laughably stupid comment from the clueless.

Receiving welfare is not a "right" it is a privilege. Receiving proper law enforcement assistance IS a right.

Where does it say that in the constitution?

Get it sweetie?

Stop being a fag.

 

[Inthemiddle]

Yea it's crazy. You can't even get a Micky D's job without first passing a drug test. I think this welfare drug testing was a fair law.

The fact that you find it "fair" to violate the constitutional rights of people simply because they are accepting government assistance, is astounding and instantly casts all your arguments into the light of a loonie.

No one is forced to accept welfare therefore no one is forced to take these drug tests.

I'm amazed that your argument for "fair" is to point out the quid pro quo nature of all of this.

I don't think it's a violation of anyone's rights.

That's probably because you are completely ignorant on the 4th amendment and the case law surrounding it.

If you have to pass a drug test to gain employment,i don't see why people can't pass a drug test to receive taxpayer-funded benefits.

So in other words, you're jealous of those who are receiving benefits for not having to take a drug test, and you want them to have to do the same as you. Gotcha.

Now if you want to argue the merits of drug testing all together,i'm willing to jump in that argument.

In other words, you don't actually want to talk about the subject that we're discussing here, you want to talk about a different subject. Okay, fine. Go create a new thread.

 

[Inthemiddle]

These welfare programs are funded by the taxpayers. So the taxpayers should have a say in how these benefits should be administered. If a State decides on drug testing,then so be it.

So, you think that popular support negates the constitution? That's sad and disturbing.

Just stop doing drugs and take care of your children.

I'M STILL WAITING FOR YOU PEOPLE TO PRODUCE SOME EVIDENCE THAT ANY MEANINGFUL NUMBER OF APPLICANTS IS ON DRUGS!!! BECAUSE ALL THE EVIDENCE SO FAR SAYS THAT EACH ONE OF YOU IS MORE LIKELY TO BE A CRACK HEAD THAN THEM.

You want to work at Micky D's? Guess what? You'll take a drug test first.

McDonald's is not the government. Guess you didn't know that.

That's just the way it is. Such is life.

Seems that your attitude is that any time something unconstitutional happens, we should simply write it of as part of life. That's the thinking of a big-government-loving radical.

 

[Inthemiddle]

And if they stopped doing drugs

EVIDENCE! OR SHUT IT! You have no evidence that these people are doing drugs in the first place. And THAT is exactly why this is unconstitutional. There is no probable cause to suggest any of these people are doing anything illegal, yet you want to search them anyway. If that's how you feel, then why can't the police come into YOUR home to search for evidence of drug use?

 

[Inthemiddle]

We agree because it's not an opinion, it's a fact. Can't really argue facts.

Oh, to the contrary. There are alot of people on this board, in this very thread, who think they can argue their way into their own set of facts.

 

[The T]

I have to take a random drug test and pass it to keep my job with the gubment, but it's against the 4th amendment for entitlement receivers to have to take a drug test to keep receiving taxpayer dollars for welfare? This judge is pathetic, and wrong. If I was the governor I would rewrite the laws governing the receiving of welfare, I would make it mandatory that they sign a form stating that they agree to a drug test each month to receive the welfare, that would bypass this judges ruling by having the recipient either volunteer to take the test or not receive the money or stamps.
Typical progressive bullshit, if you cannot get it done through legislation you go through a corrupt judge to legislate it from the bench.
Judge Blocks Florida's New Welfare Drug Testing Law | Fox News

It is the judges and lawyers that have turned our country upside down, as they give deference to the takers.

This is because the Courts went rogue and assigned themselves power with Maubury v. Madison in 1803.

Remember The Founders warned us regarding the Judical as being the most despotic. (Jefferson).

 

[geauxtohell]

I have to take a random drug test and pass it to keep my job with the gubment, but it's against the 4th amendment for entitlement receivers to have to take a drug test to keep receiving taxpayer dollars for welfare? This judge is pathetic, and wrong. If I was the governor I would rewrite the laws governing the receiving of welfare, I would make it mandatory that they sign a form stating that they agree to a drug test each month to receive the welfare, that would bypass this judges ruling by having the recipient either volunteer to take the test or not receive the money or stamps.
Typical progressive bullshit, if you cannot get it done through legislation you go through a corrupt judge to legislate it from the bench.
Judge Blocks Florida's New Welfare Drug Testing Law | Fox News

It is the judges and lawyers that have turned our country upside down, as they give deference to the takers.

This is because the Courts went rogue and assigned themselves power with Maubury v. Madison in 1803.

Remember The Founders warned us regarding the Judical as being the most despotic. (Jefferson).

You mean "Marbury v."?

Wow. The overwhelming majority of the founders where still alive and the author of the Declaration of Independence (Jefferson) was the President.

Why wasn't there a second revolution?

In fact, Jefferson viewed Marbury as a victory as it trumped his adversary, James Madison's, attempt to pack the court with a bunch of federalists.

Learn your own history and stop acting like you have special dispensation to speak for the "founders".

Moth ball your imperial Quija Board.

 

[koshergrl]

These welfare programs are funded by the taxpayers. So the taxpayers should have a say in how these benefits should be administered. If a State decides on drug testing,then so be it. Just stop doing drugs and take care of your children. You want to work at Micky D's? Guess what? You'll take a drug test first. That's just the way it is. Such is life.

Well no, not when what the taxpayers want is unconstitutional.

 

[geauxtohell]

We agree because it's not an opinion, it's a fact. Can't really argue facts.

It's not an issue of facts. It's an issue of giving a shit.

As in some people don't.

 

[koshergrl]

And that's your business because....?

 

[Inthemiddle]

This is because the Courts went rogue and assigned themselves power with Maubury v. Madison in 1803.

They didn't assign themselves the power. The constitution did it. I see this claim often, that Marbury created judicial review. What people like you don't know is that judicial review originates from England, and was part of the legal structure of the judicial system in the colonies at the time of the ratification of the US constitution. Seeing as the constitution clearly vests into the judiciary the power to determine all questions of law and equity arising from the constitution and the laws of the United States, judicial review was unquestionably part of what the constitution understood to be "all questions of law."

What I'm sure you'll be happy to ignore is the fact that nearly 20 years before Marbury Hamilton was writing about judicial review in the Federalist papers, showing that it was clearly understood to exist under the constitution well before Marbury. Judicial review and the invalidation of statutes was happening relatively frequently in state courts before the constitution was written. Hamilton and several other members of the Constitutional Convention were themselves lawyers or judges, and naturally understood judicial review to be a normal exercise of the judiciary. Even the staunch anti-federalist Luther Martin said: "As to the constitutionality of laws, that point will come before the judges in their official character. In this character they have a negative on the laws."

Another founder, Elbridge Gerry, said that the federal judiciary "will have a sufficient check agst. encroachments on their own department by their exposition of the laws, which involved a power of deciding on their Constitutionality. In some States the Judges had actually set aside laws as being agst. the Constitution."

Constitutional Convention minutes

Remember The Founders warned us regarding the Judical as being the most despotic. (Jefferson).

1) If you are going to say "founders" then you must cite more than one.

2) If you are going to make claims as to what Jefferson said, you must produce them. For example, note what Jefferson wrote to George Washington: "The dignity and stability of government in all its branches, the morals of the people and every blessing of society depend so much upon an upright and skillful administration of justice, that the judicial power ought to be distinct from both the legislative and executive and independent upon both, that so it may be a check upon both, as both should be checks upon that."

3) As I've demonstrated above, the founding fathers clearly understood judicial review to be within the scope of the judiciary. Try again next time.

 

[geauxtohell]

And that's your business because....?

I give a shit.

 

[koshergrl]

Too bad. It's none of your business, and you can't target people for punitive interference with the objective of removing their children, just because they're poor.

 

[Inthemiddle]

Here's another sample from Luthor Martin:

Whether therefore, any laws or regulations of the Congress, or any acts of its President or other officers are contrary to, or not warranted by the constitution, rests only with the judges, who are appointed by Congress to determine; by whose determinations every State must be bound.

Article 3, Section 2, Clause 1: Luther Martin, Genuine Information

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

This is because the Courts went rogue and assigned themselves power with Maubury v. Madison in 1803.

Well that’s profoundly ignorant. And telling.

They didn't assign themselves the power. The constitution did it. I see this claim often, that Marbury created judicial review.

As do I.

This fallacy seems a common denominator among the TPM, far right, libertarians, et al, that the Court somehow ‘contrived’ an authority it didn’t have. Marbury codified the existing doctrines of the rule of law and judicial review, as correctly noted, established in English Common Law. Indeed, the Constitution is the culmination of that judicial tradition, dating back to and before the Magna Carta.

 

[geauxtohell]

Too bad. It's none of your business, and you can't target people for punitive interference with the objective of removing their children, just because they're poor.

Oh. We misunderstood each other.

I agree with your position on this matter. I don't think people on government assistance should have to pee in a cup and I think comparing them to military personal is an absurd non sequitur.

 

[koshergrl]

Oh, ok, lol.