• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

Compassionate Conservatives, all of them

back-to-basics question: It initially says it's asking about any prior drug history... so if you had a drug conviction 5 years ago, are clean now, and choose not to disclose that (or answer affirmatively to having had an issue at any point)... you'll get denied? Is that how I'm reading that?
 
jhmd2000 said:
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."
Click to expand...

The case here is NOT one of consent. These cases will be, and are being brought by, people who do not consent and therefore are disqualified from receiving welfare.
 
Wakeforest22890 said:
The case here is NOT one of consent. These cases will be, and are being brought by, people who do not consent and therefore are disqualified from receiving welfare.
Click to expand...

Which is why the State should have no restriction on conditioning continued eligibility on submitting to urinalysis. You can choose to consent or not, but the application and renewal of benefits can be conditioned on consenting to a test. There is no Constitutional guaranty of access to welfare. If you don't consent, then you are not eligible to apply/renew. Your call.

Are you still in law school or are you out yet? What is the source of the entitlement you are seeking to protect (hint: gratuitous state action =/= an actual entitlement)? You've rushed past the first step of the analysis. Spoiler alert: They are not being denied anything they are actually entitled to receive.
 
Last edited:
TuffaloDeac10 said:
Nope. Can't condition a discretionary benefit on waiving a constitutional right.
Click to expand...

They are not waiving the right to be free from unreasonable search and seizures. If they consent to it, it is not unreasonable by definition.

Have you ever gotten on a plane?
 
Lawyer parties must kick ass.
 
jhmd2000 said:
They are not waiving the right to be free from unreasonable search and seizures. If they consent to it, it is not unreasonable by definition.

Have you ever gotten on a plane?
Click to expand...

There's an essential connection (well, not really, but close enough) between flying and airport security measures. Not so with piss-testing TANF applicants.
 
TuffaloDeac10 said:
There's an essential connection (well, not really, but close enough) between flying and airport security measures. Not so with piss-testing TANF applicants.
Click to expand...

That's your opinion, but the part you keep missing is that the State can terminate welfare because the Cubs failed to win the division this year. They don't need a reason. No one is entitled to it at all, so it can't be "unconstitutionally" denied to anyone (who, to review, isn't even entitled to receive it in a Constitutional sense.). Drug users are not a protected class. So they are not being denied something they are entitled to and they are not being discriminated against....and they are not subject to "unreasonable" search and seizures.

I ask again: please show me the right infringed.
 
And, yes, the government obviously doesn't have to offer TANF or SNAP or anything else, but if it does, it has to be offered in a not unconstitutional way. This is really basic
 
TuffaloDeac10 said:
That's shown above in the thread
Click to expand...

No, it isn't. The facts they are talking about is warrantless, nonconsensual searches. They aren't in the NFL. If they refuse the search, that's their call, but they become ineligible for renewal.

I get that you want them to have unrestricted access to public money and have the system turn a blind eye to self-destructive behaviors that will keep them dependent. That sounds like a great idea if ever there was one, but let that policy argument carry the day in a political body. Don't make ish up in the superlegislature you mistake the Courts to be.

If you could persuade me that they have a property right in something they didn't earn, then you've got an outside shot at some sort of takings claim. Under my proposal they are absolutely free to refuse consent to the search. Just as you are when you talk down the jetway. It just means you won't be boarding the plane, but you and your perfectly undisturbed Fourth Amendment rights can watch other people fly.
 
TuffaloDeac10 said:
And, yes, the government obviously doesn't have to offer TANF or SNAP or anything else, but if it does, it has to be offered in a not unconstitutional way. This is really basic
Click to expand...

You're not going to tell me the right, are you?

The search isn't conducted if the person declines. The Fourth Amendment rests comfortably in its dwelling (at least from this low grade attack; the Admin has opened up both barrels on the right flank, but I'm sure you'll get around to that any minute now.)

Urinalysis are nontestimonial (yeah, I used to law a little but now I law a lot), so we're good on the Fifth.

Drug abusers are not a protected class, so we're looking good on 5th/14th.

You can't really claim a taking of a nonvested, discretionary benefit....

What obvious right are you holding out on?
 
Last edited:
TuffaloDeac10 said:
And, yes, the government obviously doesn't have to offer TANF or SNAP or anything else, but if it does, it has to be offered in a not unconstitutional way. This is really basic
Click to expand...

It's not that I don't appreciate that your personal beliefs compel you to argue that the legislature should not impose this requirement. Your personal opinion was pretty clear several hours ago when you caped up for these people. We got it loud and clear, from you and your little numbers too.

That's not the issue, though, on a Constitutional question. The question is "can" the legislature. The answer is yes, unless you can illustrate a protected entitlement to demand public assistance and dictate your own terms conditions placed upon it, unless those restrictions violate a Constitutional right. I still can't get you to show me which right is being violated. Fine.

Let's move to the discussion you've been wanting to have this entire time: "Should" they have this restriction? Make your case for the State turning a blind eye to drug abuse to people who are already in need. Get down with your bad self. I'm prepared to be dazzled and spellbound.
 
Wakeforest22890 said:
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.
Click to expand...

The reason several of us posted that the Tennessee law is unconstitutional is because we were aware of the existing precedent declaring the Florida law unconstitutional.

I like how at no point in the 5 or 6 posts since this actual, you know, LEGAL AUTHORITY was posted has jhmd addressed the substance of these cases or explained why his constitutional reasoning is superior to the 11th circuit. Hey jhmd, read the opinion and get back to us.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top