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."
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.
Nope. Can't condition a discretionary benefit on waiving a constitutional right.
Nope. Can't condition a discretionary benefit on waiving a constitutional right.
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?
There's an essential connection (well, not really, but close enough) between flying and airport security measures. Not so with piss-testing TANF applicants.
That's shown above in the thread
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
Did conservatives push to piss test TARP beneficiaries?
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
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.
Taxes are paid in legal tender, not piss