I'm in favor of the individual mandate of the ACA. I've been pretty clear and consistent about that, but am not narcisstic enough to assume you log my positions. If you wanted to object on Constitutional grounds, I think it would be difficult to find Article I Section 8 authority to even pass the law in the first place. Our government is (was?) one of enumerated powers, and telling people how they should plan for their own health with their private resources seems outside the scope of those enumerated powers. That's why you have to make it up as a pretend tax.
Compassionate Conservatives, all of them
- Thread starter TownieDeac
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
I'm in favor of the individual mandate of the ACA. I've been pretty clear and consistent about that, but am not narcisstic enough to assume you log my positions. If you wanted to object on Constitutional grounds, I think it would be difficult to find Article I Section 8 authority to even pass the law in the first place. Our government is (was?) one of enumerated powers, and telling people how they should plan for their own health with their private resources seems outside the scope of those enumerated powers. That's why you have to make it up as a pretend tax.
It's not unlawful if you consent. If you apply for public benefits, you can consent.
Among the unauthorized searches our government is doing at this very moment, a disclosed drug screening that people can opt in to (or not) is not even close to the most offensive.
TuffaloDeac10
🌹☭
I repeat: do you even law, bro?
TuffaloDeac10
🌹☭
The point is constitutionality, not offensiveness
You are entitled to be free from unlawful search and seizure (LOL say both of the last two Presidents). It is not "unlawful" if you consent. In exchange for absolutely no consideration, any officer of the law can ask you for consent to search your vehicle. That same officer---on absolutely no reasonable suspicion whatsoever---can set up a traffic stop, pull everyone who passes a given space on the road, and conduct a DWI checkpoint, which might include forcing you to submit to a battery of roadside tests and submit a Breathalyzer sample (the refusal of which is itself a criminal act...a monument to our faith in implied consent if ever there was one). The screening is generally applicable and the consent for the stop is implied by the motorist choosing to use the road in the first place.
Please differentiate a roadside screening for alcohol from drug testing for people on public benefits. If consent can deemed to be implied in one instance where a motorist undertakes a voluntary act of using the public resource of a channel of transportation, what's to say it can't be presumed when the consumer undertakes the voluntary act of applying for public benefits?
TuffaloDeac10
🌹☭
The obvious comparison is land use cases like Dolan v Tigard, not roadside stops. I don't think you law
ImTheCaptain
I disagree with you
I appreciate your uncanny ability to agree with you, but I respectfully decline to agree that the use of your own private property is "obvious" when compared to two similar cases of individuals using public resources (not your property).
Help me see the distinction that is so obvious to you, by using my analogy. If it is "obvious", then you should have no problem distinguishing between the two. Proceed, counselor.
Last edited:
dot com
Well-known member
Tigard?
TuffaloDeac10
🌹☭
The first of the big problems is that there's no essential connection between food stamps (or subsidized daycare, or TANF, or any welfare system, really) and drug testing. It's a willy nilly condition. It's not at like driving a car on a road. Roads and cars have a nexus. QED. Didn't even have to conference with Numbers. Your game must not have a very high peak if you're on top of it
TuffaloDeac10
🌹☭
Your opinion about nexus is interesting, but it's certainly not determinative. If the people who are providing the resources, through their elected representatives, choose to impose that condition, I'm asking you what the Constitutional basis is to object. You have replied that in your opinion the two don't go together. That's fine, but that doesn't answer the question I have asked, so I will repeat it: why can't the people who provide the public resource impose a condition upon the access to it be that the person can either choose to consent to or decline to consent to before applying?
If "nexus" mattered, then please explain why the officer can ask for my CONSENT to search the trunk of my car to see how safely I am driving it at a roadside stop? The truth is that nexus is irrelevant in a consent search.
Isn't it?
TuffaloDeac10
🌹☭
Maybe you should try reading the rulings, hoss
Maybe someone who is confident that it is so obvious can just answer my question. The state can ask for your consent for any time and for any reason, with or without any offsetting compensation. Why suddenly did that go away? Do you have a case that says it did? Maybe something from land use, admiralty law or tribal comity can provide an obvious answer to this Fourth Amendment question...
TuffaloDeac10
🌹☭
You are just reveling in your non-lawing lifestyle. Have a good day
Challenge demurred, it seems.
ImTheCaptain
I disagree with you
Wakeforest22890
Snowpom
I always thought JHMD must be good at being an attorney since he's so bad at everything else but even here he's showing that it's yet one more thing that he's just utterly awful at doing.
Wakeforest22890
Snowpom
JHMD:
" LOL at 4th Amendment, which as anyone who has ever been pulled over knows is waivable at the drop of a hat. If you consciously elect to apply for something to be given to you for free, you consent to its conditions."
District court of Florida responds:
The court "finds there is no set of circumstances under which the warrantless, suspicionless drug testing at issue in this case could be constitutionally applied."
Hey, it probably got overturned by the Circuit Court right?
11th Circuit responds:
"A ruling in February 2013 from the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals in Atlanta affirmed the injunction."
Ah shit.
Well, there's probably a really good argument to be made in favor of circumventing the 4th amendment to efficiently provide welfare to those who REALLY need it, and not just druggies. Right?
"The state continued to argue that it warranted an exception to the Fourth Amendment to ensure TANF participants' job readiness, to meet child-welfare goals and to ensure that public funds are properly used."
YEAH THAT'S WHAT I'M TALKING ABOUT!
Oh....
"But in the Dec. 31 ruling, the court agreed with the 11th Circuit's preliminary conclusion, saying, "There is nothing so special or immediate about the government's interest in ensuring that TANF recipients are drug free so as to warrant suspension of the Fourth Amendment.""
Oh well. I tried, JHMD, but it turns out you're just wrong like always.
" LOL at 4th Amendment, which as anyone who has ever been pulled over knows is waivable at the drop of a hat. If you consciously elect to apply for something to be given to you for free, you consent to its conditions."
District court of Florida responds:
The court "finds there is no set of circumstances under which the warrantless, suspicionless drug testing at issue in this case could be constitutionally applied."
Hey, it probably got overturned by the Circuit Court right?
11th Circuit responds:
"A ruling in February 2013 from the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals in Atlanta affirmed the injunction."
Ah shit.
Well, there's probably a really good argument to be made in favor of circumventing the 4th amendment to efficiently provide welfare to those who REALLY need it, and not just druggies. Right?
"The state continued to argue that it warranted an exception to the Fourth Amendment to ensure TANF participants' job readiness, to meet child-welfare goals and to ensure that public funds are properly used."
YEAH THAT'S WHAT I'M TALKING ABOUT!
Oh....
"But in the Dec. 31 ruling, the court agreed with the 11th Circuit's preliminary conclusion, saying, "There is nothing so special or immediate about the government's interest in ensuring that TANF recipients are drug free so as to warrant suspension of the Fourth Amendment.""
Oh well. I tried, JHMD, but it turns out you're just wrong like always.
Last edited:
You continue to talk strictly about warrantless searches but fail to address consent. It's fine, but the argument is some place else.
I like that you think that a discretionary benefit can't be conditioned on a reasonable restriction. That does not speak well of your understanding of the word "discretionary."
I like that you think that a discretionary benefit can't be conditioned on a reasonable restriction. That does not speak well of your understanding of the word "discretionary."