Big difference. I shouldnt have to spell it out for you.Originally Posted by .blank cd
Big difference. I shouldnt have to spell it out for you.
"Racing is life. Anything before or after is just waiting." - Steve McQueen
You still refuse a search. If they cannot prove that they had probable cause, anything discovered ina search will be thrown out.
"Racing is life. Anything before or after is just waiting." - Steve McQueen
Could you point out the difference? Both have been deemed a violation of the 4th amendment, just curious to why you think the latter isn't?
*final jeopardy music plays in the key of C major*
Nope. Accepting certain terms should be a condition of accepting welfare. You can use your constitutional rights to chose to either accept those conditions or not accept those conditions. Just like my job, i can refuse to take a drug test if i want, but it is a condition of my employment. While on welfare you should be actively seeking work and be ready to work. If you cant pass a drug test, then you are not meeting that obligation.
I commend you for being a noble citizen and standing up for the rights of welfare recipients to smoke weed while collecting a check that is funded from taxing my paycheck, yet covering your eyes when the people you voted for suggest that women should shit themselves to prevent rape. You're a real hero in my eyes, people like you should win the nobel peace prize. What's the qualifications for that these days? be the first black anything?
So what you're saying is rights and dignity for people who are driving, but not for people who are broke and need help.
Got it.
Fourth amendment rights are cool and all, until I have the chance to use classism and stereotype you as a low life drug user. Then you have no rights.
This is what Biden meant when he said people don't care about their constitutional rights. Just like you've pointed out, they really don't.
Dignity? i had to take a drug test and let someone cup my balls to get my job......
i'm sorry i dont feel asking someone who receives a check for nothing to take a drug test is stripping them of their dignity.
also, as i stated before. You have the right to refuse.
So let me get this straight....... employers have the right to make you take a drug test as a condition of employment..... but people who receive government checks should not be subjected to the same scrutiny?
Biden is a jackass.
They have the right. The government can't mandate private employers give drug tests. Conversely, you have the right to work somewhere else.
Dont be so sure of what this government can and cant mandate..... give these closet communist time, they might surprise you.
It's been 5 years, no communism yet. I think we'll be ok.
yeah, people are just over reacting to democrats trying to eradicate the constitution. The government should be able to take people's guns, tell them what to eat and drink, invade their privacy, force them to purchase from third parties or attack them with a drone if they see fit.
oops... almost forgot detain them indefinitely without a trial. Perfectly normal.
More important things to worry about... like the dignity of welfare recipients.
Since we were on the subject of 4th amendment rights, I just wanted to see if people were ACTUALLY for them, or just the ones that are convenient for them. I got my answer.
look man..........
it doesnt matter that the people who work to fund welfare have to take drug tests... the people that receive it are too dignified to be subjected to a drug test.
Doesnt have dick to do with your 4th amendment rights. One of the requirements for receiving welfare is that you are actively looking for work and able to work. The job market dictates the requirement of a drug test, if you cant pass one then you are not ready to accept a job offer.
And as long as the facts show that the vast majority of welfare recipients ARE NOT drug dealers, Id like to keep it that way
Don't want the government getting too much power, never know what they might do with it next
You never answered the question though, do you believe applying for welfare is enough reasonable suspicion to warrant a suspicionless search?
Doesnt stop my employer from drug testing me. 1st thing a potential employer is gonna do is drug test. Being drug tested is a condition of "actively seeking employment and being ready to accept a job"And as long as the facts show that the vast majority of welfare recipients ARE NOT drug dealers, Id like to keep it that way
Don't want the government getting too much power, never know what they might do with it next
It has nothing to do with suspicion. It is completely unrelated. People on welfare should be required to seek employment. A condition of that is passing a drug test.
They should kick you off welfare if youre not seeking a job too.... along with other reasons
being on welfare should NOT be easy.
It has EVERYTHING to do with suspicion because that's what it says in the constitution. In black and white. It couldn't be any more clear. Lol. People are already required to seek employment while on it, or they'll get kicked off. This is already in place and no one has argued against it. Seeking employment is not a suspicionless search of your person or belongings by the government.
The government CAN NOT search your person or belongings without reasonable suspicion. This includes your house, your car, your purse, or your bodily fluids. Period. It doesn't matter what your private employer does because they don't operate under the same rules.
So now, is the act of applying for welfare enough reasonable suspicion to search your person?
Do you have a constitutional right to collecting welfare? Passing a drug test, actively seeking employment and being ready to accept employment should be a condition of welfare. You can either chose to accept welfare or not chose to accept welfare, you're free to do as you like. Nobody forcing you to do anything.
The basis of your heart bleeding for this cause is because you're ok with welfare recipients using drugs.
Echo with his typical brilliance has summed it up quite nicely here fellas. If we're gonna argue can we at least get some new material instead of rehashing the same old shit 3216546351325165 times.
lead the way
Whether I give a shit if a welfare recipient smokes a joint has nothing to do with what I'm talking about.
I'm simply asking if you think the act of applying for welfare is enough reasonable suspicion to warrant a suspicionless search, by the letter of the constitution, that's all.
I know the answer, I just wanna see you say it.
Says the guys who frequent an automotive forum who's members post pictures up of the same stanced out garbage day in and day out.
Participate, or click the little X at the top corner of your browser.
It has nothing to do with suspicion...... the point is not "being on welfare makes me think youre a drug user"....
employed people.... tax payers.... the people who pay for welfare..... have to take a drug test as a condition of employment. I could be drug tested today...... i can refuse to take the drug test if i want. Welfare recipients are required to be actively seeking employment as a condition of being on welfare. They should be required to take a drug test as a condition of receiving that aid. Something they can chose not to do if they want. You will decide to either volunteer to take a drug test or not volunteer to take a drug test. If you're not willing to volunteer to take a drug test, then you're not willing to accept employment, because that is the first thing an employer is going to ask you to do.
If we're arguing the technical details of it....... i'm OK with welfare recipients not being drug tested..... just enforce that they seek employment and set up a program for employers to report anyone denying a job offer or failing a drug test. If you reject a job or fail a drug test..... best of luck to you, no government check.
That way employers who have "hard jobs" to offer can have a database of people to fill their needs and we can keep track of people who arent trying to find a job.
In one situation, you have an individual initiating communications with a government agency specifically looking for benefits. They do not have to seek out those benefits, nor are under any obligation to continue to seek them, if a test of any type (written, chemical, etc) is a condition of receiving those benefits.
In the other situation, you have a government agency that's is routinely found to violate rights initiating a request to attempt to find something that they can criminalize against you, and attempting to intimidate non-criminals into giving up their Constitutional rights.
The first situation doesn't currently happen to people. The second currently happens on a regular basis.
I could give you a more complex answer, but if you couldn't get this far on your own, it wouldn't help for me to explain anything more complex.
"Racing is life. Anything before or after is just waiting." - Steve McQueen
People do not have to request government assistance, like welfare. There are churches, mosques, temples, and private agencies that give assistance to those in need.
"Racing is life. Anything before or after is just waiting." - Steve McQueen
it just makes too much sense......
i honestly did a face palm when i read this.... but it was a positive face palm..... as if to say "omg, its so obvious... why cant everyone see it this way"
This is the most god damn rational combination of characters you have ever pressed across your keyboard in the history of your life.
And that's all fine and great, and they have the right to get assistance from whatever vector they choose, but when you're going the government route, the constitution still has to apply. Suspicionless searches are illegal. I like it that way.
I'll answer that one.
Just applying for welfare is not enough to search without probable cause. The government should absolutely not be allowed to search your personal property for that.
Perhaps you should read what the spirit of the law was that Fourth Amendment was written to address: Writ of assistance - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
"Racing is life. Anything before or after is just waiting." - Steve McQueen
Collecting a sample of urine, by the government is a search by law and a collection of evidence by law. There's no two ways about that. In order to search, you have to have reasonable suspicion, by law
Does the act of applying for welfare provide enough reasonable suspicion to warrant a suspicionless search?
I don't disagree. I just am being clear that there is a difference. The Constitutional amendments should be recognized and protected in all venues, where applicable. Technically, a drug test would have probable cause if they could say what type of drug they suspected you to be under the influence of. Without that, they would not have probable cause.
Personally, if a person is attempting to get a job, and drugs are not hampering his performance, or putting anyone in danger, I have no more issue with drugs than drinking alcohol. What they do at home is their business and choice. I rarely drink, and never use drugs myself, and that is my choice.
"Racing is life. Anything before or after is just waiting." - Steve McQueen
I absolutely agree with 100% of that. So we've got to get over the first hurdle: Probable cause. Does the act of applying for welfare give enough probable cause to warrant a suspicionless search?
But im still getting what i want..... i just shaped it into a slightly more politically correct presentation.
Employers should have a list of welfare recipients to contact with job offers. If you were a scientist making 500k a year and deny a job offer washing dishes at dennys, then you get kicked off welfare. If you fail a drug test, kicked off welfare. If an employer calls your phone for 2 weeks without getting an answer, kicked off welfare.... if you get fired from 3 jobs that you received via this theoretical system, kicked off welfare.
It's not a search though - it is given freely by your consent. If you are applying for government assistance, and the condition of that non-required assistance is that you submit a urine sample, then you have to sign a form giving consent and you freely give that sample. It's not a search and seizure in any legal capacity. Last that I checked though, that is not happening currently.
Now, if you are arrested and in jail and they take a urine sample, that is a search. Very different circumstances though.
"Racing is life. Anything before or after is just waiting." - Steve McQueen
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote