Gov. Walker of the Cheesehead State has proposed that anyone wishing to get unemployment benefits. The idea being that an employer can be reasonably certain that an unemployed applicant has been drug tested and is thus okay to hire. This is not for welfare, just unemployment benefits.
A Federal judge stopped a Florida law that required applicants for welfare to pass a drug test, finding that it “violated constitutional protections against unreasonable searches." Note that this was not testing for the purpose of criminal prosecution, just for receiving welfare benefits. I would guess the underlying premise was that if someone is in such bad straights that they need welfare because of their drug use, there is little point in extending the welfare money if the recipient is continuing to use drugs. Having lived with substance-abusing family members, I can attest to the wisdom of this approach.
Of course, the ACLU took this to court and, once again, a Federal judge struck down the state law (ruthlessly violating the X Amendment in a bizarre effort to incorporate the IV). And, of course, a Federal appellate court upheld the decision.
It is this stuff that drives me to distraction.
First, the policy itself seems like a good idea to me (and to Florida and to Scott Walker). Why continue to subsidize drug-using individuals' self-destructive behavior? I do not know any rational person who would argue in favor of giving money to people whose drug habit is what got them into such straits that they now need public assistance. This is just enabling a continuation of self-destructive behavior.
Second, the Founders wrote the IV Amendment because the British colonial officials were issuing "writs of assistance," which were essentially open-ended search warrants, with which the Brits searched colonials' residences and property, and prosecuted the colonists based on whatever contraband they found there. The Founders wanted to make sure this did not happen in the US. These modern-day laws, however, are not about criminal prosecution, but about receiving other people's money from the hands of the government. Why can the donors not put conditions on the gift? Don't like the conditions of the gift, don't accept the gift. Just walk away. Why that is too complex for this Federal judge is beyond me.
Third, the X Amendment dictates that a Federal judge is not allowed to have any opinion at all on a state law, unless it inevitably violates some other plain provision of the Constitution of the United States, which this clearly does not. Her only appropriate response in a case like this is, "This court has no jurisdiction over this case. Take this to a state court."
Some folks are trying to help fix some serious problems in this country, and other people are working overtime to stop them, working overtime to keep the downward spiral going.
If I was a legislator, I'd vote to impeach and/or remove such a judge, and if I were Planetary Commander, I'd banish this sod from the country. She is too stupid to be allowed to remain in the US.
A Federal judge stopped a Florida law that required applicants for welfare to pass a drug test, finding that it “violated constitutional protections against unreasonable searches." Note that this was not testing for the purpose of criminal prosecution, just for receiving welfare benefits. I would guess the underlying premise was that if someone is in such bad straights that they need welfare because of their drug use, there is little point in extending the welfare money if the recipient is continuing to use drugs. Having lived with substance-abusing family members, I can attest to the wisdom of this approach.
Of course, the ACLU took this to court and, once again, a Federal judge struck down the state law (ruthlessly violating the X Amendment in a bizarre effort to incorporate the IV). And, of course, a Federal appellate court upheld the decision.
It is this stuff that drives me to distraction.
First, the policy itself seems like a good idea to me (and to Florida and to Scott Walker). Why continue to subsidize drug-using individuals' self-destructive behavior? I do not know any rational person who would argue in favor of giving money to people whose drug habit is what got them into such straits that they now need public assistance. This is just enabling a continuation of self-destructive behavior.
Second, the Founders wrote the IV Amendment because the British colonial officials were issuing "writs of assistance," which were essentially open-ended search warrants, with which the Brits searched colonials' residences and property, and prosecuted the colonists based on whatever contraband they found there. The Founders wanted to make sure this did not happen in the US. These modern-day laws, however, are not about criminal prosecution, but about receiving other people's money from the hands of the government. Why can the donors not put conditions on the gift? Don't like the conditions of the gift, don't accept the gift. Just walk away. Why that is too complex for this Federal judge is beyond me.
Third, the X Amendment dictates that a Federal judge is not allowed to have any opinion at all on a state law, unless it inevitably violates some other plain provision of the Constitution of the United States, which this clearly does not. Her only appropriate response in a case like this is, "This court has no jurisdiction over this case. Take this to a state court."
Some folks are trying to help fix some serious problems in this country, and other people are working overtime to stop them, working overtime to keep the downward spiral going.
If I was a legislator, I'd vote to impeach and/or remove such a judge, and if I were Planetary Commander, I'd banish this sod from the country. She is too stupid to be allowed to remain in the US.
Last edited:
