Let me get this straight.

[Si modo]

Emotionally, I agree. I don't want my tax dollars enabling someone to continue to use drugs and destroy their lives.

Practically, I disagree. It costs money. We don't have money. And, welfare ain't going away anytime soon.

 

[Valerie]

It's not just about the money. It's about protecting our civil liberties...

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

Dude... I work on-site with many of my clients, as such, I am subject to random drug tests just like an employee is.. and it has happened.

I'm a CPA.

Funny thing is.... you using drugs might make you a bad CPA, but no one is going to die if you use. You will just perhaps suk as a CPA.
Some jobs need to have random drug screening, but Jeez... a CPA

They don't differentiate.... even the CEO is subject to random testing.. EVERYBODY. A secretary lost her job because she failed a Breathalyzer.. apparently she pulled a bender the night before... that sucks.

They definately would have found some Dayquill in me today though....

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

It's not just about the money. It's about protecting our civil liberties...

Sinvce when do you have the right to do illegal drugs and collect taxpayer dollars?

 

[Si modo]

It's not just about the money. It's about protecting our civil liberties...

I disagree. Our civil liberties are violated when we are prevented from a right guaranteed to us in the Constitution.

There is no right to be given money for producing nothing or providing no service.

We do have a right to do to ourselves as we wish (mostly), though. But, this is where they have to make a choice.

Regardless, I am not in favor of this.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

I have to take a random drug test and pass it to keep my job with the gubment,

It depends on the context and procedure of testing, which your employer is more than likely doing correctly:

…under the same constitutional provisions, persons have a fundamental right to privacy of their person and property. Drug testing, although in itself deemed legal, may be subject to constitutional challenge if testing results are indiscriminately divulged, if procedures for obtaining personal specimens do not respect the privacy rights of the person, or if testing is unnecessarily or excessively imposed.

Drug Testing: Encyclopedia of Everyday Law

but it's against the 4th amendment for entitlement receivers to have to take a drug test to keep receiving taxpayer dollars for welfare?

Correct, as per the cited passage above, the problem with the Florida drug testing law was with treatment of the results and the overall procedure.

This judge is pathetic, and wrong.

No, the judge was simply following case law, see: Marchwinski v. Howard.

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.

This makes no sense. Governors don’t ‘rewrite’ laws, that’s the sole purpose of the legislature. And although law making bodies often rewrite measures to pass Constitutional muster, the punitive and invasive nature of the welfare drug testing law will keep it un-Constitutional, regardless how rewritten. And whatever laws are passed, they will always be subject to judicial review.

Typical progressive bullshit, if you cannot get it done through legislation you go through a corrupt judge to legislate it from the bench.

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

You have no evidence the judge is ‘corrupt,’ as she is compelled to follow precedent, jurists don’t simply make things up.

There is no such thing as ‘legislating from the bench,’ that’s a rightist contrivance and myth. It’s incumbent upon all law making bodies to pass laws that are Constitutional, in that regard the Florida legislature failed, it has only itself to blame.

Otherwise, it’s the judges and lawyers who maintain the rule of law, the foundation of our Republic, it protects each citizen from the tyranny of the majority.

I think the problem the judge saw was the way the law is written and would be carried out. The results of the tests which can reveal other medical conditions are not considered private as are a drug tests by your employer. The legislature is going to have to figure out how they can write the law so it doesn't violate the constitution. I think the judge made the proper ruling.

Correct.

 

[Inthemiddle]

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?

You're trying to cross lines. Pre/continuing employment drug screening is a completely different kind of issue. Requiring a drug test to receive government services is unconstitutional. It's like the police requiring you to take a drug test before you can report a crime against you.

This judge is pathetic, and wrong.

Do you have any idea what's even going on? A suit has been filed, and a temporary injunction has been issued, and that's all. This is nothing more than a normal procedural step. I've explained temporary injunctions in another thread already.

If I was the governor I would rewrite the laws governing the receiving of welfare

In other words you would try to "alleviate" the constitutional concern by violating the state constitution's separation of powers?

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.

And this just goes to show how ignorant you are. Requiring "consent" does not amount to voluntary. This issue has long been thoroughly understood and established by the courts. What you're proposing would still be a de facto forcible search. And as such, would still be unconstitutional. Your plan would be additionally unconstitutional, as it would violate the supremacy clause. A state governor does not have the power to circumvent a federal court order.

Typical progressive bullshit,

Actually, it's nothing more than a typical procedural process when a suit requesting injunctive relief is brought before a court.

if you cannot get it done through legislation you go through a corrupt judge to legislate it from the bench.

Again, all that has happened here is a standard procedural TEMPORARY injunction. It will probably some time next week when a preliminary hearing takes place, where the court will decide if there is sufficient merit to move forward to the final step. If so, the court may decide to issue a preliminary injunction, or may decide that a preliminary injunction is not necessary in the meantime. Though since the relief sought is based on alleged violations of constitutional rights by a relatively new law, chances are that the judge will issue the preliminary injunction so as to preserve the status quo until the case is finally disposed.

And FYI, you're not really one to make claims about corrupt judges legislating from the bench, seeing as your own plan is to violate both the state and federal constitutions to legislate from the seat and disregard federal law.[/QUOTE]

 

[Inthemiddle]

How is it different?? Especially when kids are involved. Shouldn't they have straight/sober parents to make sure they aren't hurt?? Aren't our children important enough to make safety a priority??

That is true for all children, regardless of whether their parents receive benefits. Are you prepared to suggest that the government is or should be allowed to drug test ALL parents?

 

[Inthemiddle]

I work for the DOJ with the Bureau of Prisons. The bureau does a bureau wide 5% screening every month. I have been selected twice in the last 5-1/2 years. I feel that if people out there have to take them to keep there jobs, then so should folks receiving entitlement benefits at the tax payers expense.

And do you know why many employers require drug testing?

 

[Inthemiddle]

That and I know of people who get the stamps and sell them, the state tried to deal with this by issuing DBT cards, it didn't work either. Say they get $400 a month in stamps, they will turn around and take someone to the store and purchase them the $400 in food and that person will give them $300 cash for the food. Then the recipient turns around and takes that cash and buys drugs, alcohol and cigarettes with it.

And I know former infantryman who go around starting random fights with people just for fun, then quickly run off before the police show up. Should we start monitoring all your movements just to make sure you don't break the law?

 

[bucs90]

YOU MISSED A GOLDEN DETAIL MAN!!!!!!!!!!

Its now precedent that taking someone's fluid for testing is a 4th amendment violation.

Obamacare requires we get insurance, and getting it means a screening physical, which means taking fluid for testing. Thus, Obamacare threatens by fine or jail anyone who does not submit to an unlawful 4th amendement search of body fluids.

This detail has not been spoken of. But Obamacare now, officially, is a 4th amendment violation.

 

[Inthemiddle]

So a "Doctrine" outweighs the 4th Amendment?

A "doctrine" is nothing more than a body of beliefs regarding a subject. Thus, in this case the "doctrine" is the understood meaning of 4th amendment. There's another "doctrine" that applies to the 4th amendment. It's called "fruit of the poisonous tree." It stipulates that when the government relies on illegal or unconstitutional (poisoned) means to discover evidence, the fruit of the evidence is itself tainted with the poison of the tree. Example, let's say that an officer commits an illegal traffic stop against you. During that stop, the officer discovers evidence that you are in possession of drugs. The evidence of drug possession has been illegally obtained, because it would have never happened if the cop had upheld your constitutional rights in the first place. Accordingly, it is inadmissible in court.

The employee-at-will doctrine applies in the above mentioned circumstances because an employer has the right to terminate your employment at any time, for no reason whatsoever. Thus, if you refuse a drug test and they fire you, they were within their rights. If you take the drug test and you fail, they are still within their rights to fire you for no reason whatsoever. If you take the test and you pass, they can still fire you for no reason whatsoever.

 

[Inthemiddle]

If most don't do drugs illegally and what not, then they should have no issues taking the test. Just my 2 cents on it. It is what it is though, and will not change until people start voting with common sense.

In that case, you should have no issue with the police walking into your home and searching for whatever. Because you have nothing to hide, right?

 

[Inthemiddle]

I disagree. Our civil liberties are violated when we are prevented from a right guaranteed to us in the Constitution.

There is no right to be given money for producing nothing or providing no service.

We do have a right to do to ourselves as we wish (mostly), though. But, this is where they have to make a choice.

Regardless, I am not in favor of this.

I guess you never heard of the right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures.

 

[Valerie]

It's not just about the money. It's about protecting our civil liberties...

I disagree. Our civil liberties are violated when we are prevented from a right guaranteed to us in the Constitution.

There is no right to be given money for producing nothing or providing no service.

We do have a right to do to ourselves as we wish (mostly), though. But, this is where they have to make a choice.

Regardless, I am not in favor of this.

There is no probable cause and citizens reserve the right to privacy. Unless someone has been convicted of a crime there is no justification for such a Government intrusion/requirement in order to obtain benefits citizens have paid into...

 

[Si modo]

It's not just about the money. It's about protecting our civil liberties...

I disagree. Our civil liberties are violated when we are prevented from a right guaranteed to us in the Constitution.

There is no right to be given money for producing nothing or providing no service.

We do have a right to do to ourselves as we wish (mostly), though. But, this is where they have to make a choice.

Regardless, I am not in favor of this.

There is no probable cause and citizens reserve the right to privacy. Unless someone has been convicted of a crime there is no justification for such a Government intrusion/requirement in order to obtain benefits citizens have paid into...

I understand the probable cause, but just like employment, they can refuse and accept the consequences - no free money - and free money is not guaranteed in the Constitution.

 

[Valerie]

I disagree. Our civil liberties are violated when we are prevented from a right guaranteed to us in the Constitution.

There is no right to be given money for producing nothing or providing no service.

We do have a right to do to ourselves as we wish (mostly), though. But, this is where they have to make a choice.

Regardless, I am not in favor of this.

There is no probable cause and citizens reserve the right to privacy. Unless someone has been convicted of a crime there is no justification for such a Government intrusion/requirement in order to obtain benefits citizens have paid into...

I understand the probable cause, but just like employment, they can refuse and accept the consequences - no free money.

What do you mean by free?

Employers/employees pay into an unemployment INSURANCE policy.

 

[Si modo]

There is no probable cause and citizens reserve the right to privacy. Unless someone has been convicted of a crime there is no justification for such a Government intrusion/requirement in order to obtain benefits citizens have paid into...

I understand the probable cause, but just like employment, they can refuse and accept the consequences - no free money.

What do you mean by free?

Employers/employees pay into an unemployment INSURANCE policy.

I'm not talking about unemployment. I'm talking about welfare. That's why I said 'welfare' in my post.

 

[Inthemiddle]

YOU MISSED A GOLDEN DETAIL MAN!!!!!!!!!!

Its now precedent that taking someone's fluid for testing is a 4th amendment violation.

Uh, no. First of all, all that's happened in this case is that the judge issued a temporary injunction pursuant to a recently filed suit. This is nothing more than an initial procedural step. The judge has not heard the case, nor made a ruling on the plaintiff's claims.

Obamacare requires we get insurance, and getting it means a screening physical, which means taking fluid for testing.

Oh geez, are you kidding me? You really want to argue that a private doctor drawing blood somehow amounts to the government forcibly searching you?

Thus, Obamacare threatens by fine or jail anyone who does not submit to an unlawful 4th amendement search of body fluids.

You know, there's no end to the kind of partisan BS some people on this board will spew, is there? Here's an idea. Instead of sitting around bitching and complaining like a 2 year old girl about not liking Obama's HC bill, how about you do something productive, like write your Congressperson and/or Senator to support a repeal. Why not talk about something productive, like the public dissatisfaction over the bill or the undesirable consequences to society. If you can't do that, then just don't talk at all. Because when you spout BS like this you're only helping to preserve a second Obama term. And that's the kind of thing that's going to make want to go around and start cutting down wing-nut conservatives at the knees.

 

[Inthemiddle]

I understand the probable cause, but just like employment, they can refuse and accept the consequences - no free money - and free money is not guaranteed in the Constitution.

Government services do not fall under "at-will" as employment does.