Obama Admits His Immigration Action is Unconstitutional

[john9blue]

You do realize that drug testing of welfare recipients has been determined, on a number of occasions, to be unConstitutional, right? How do you juxtapose that with your alleged strict adherence to the Constitution?

how is it unconstitutional? just curious.

[Night Strike]

We already know what Obamacare contains, and each one of those things I listed are included.

[Woodruff]

We already know what Obamacare contains, and each one of those things I listed are included.

Yeah, I didn't think you wanted to read it either.

[Woodruff]

You do realize that drug testing of welfare recipients has been determined, on a number of occasions, to be unConstitutional, right? How do you juxtapose that with your alleged strict adherence to the Constitution?

how is it unconstitutional? just curious.

Suspicionless searches against a person are deemed unconsitutional via the Fourth Amendment. This is fairly basic.

[Phatscotty]

Drug testing welfare applicants and marriage are both equally a state issue.

[Woodruff]

Drug testing welfare applicants and marriage are both equally a state issue.

Not according to the Constitution, Phatscotty. I thought you believed in the Constitution? Or is this another case of "only when it's convenient for you"?

[Neoteny]

A dictator is someone who unilaterally writes the laws of his country or unilaterally goes against the laws already written in his country. Obama frequently goes against the laws that are already on the books, with this being the most blatant and far-reaching. The Constitution states that the executive branch is to carry out the laws the Congress passes. If he doesn't like a bill, he can veto it. If he doesn't like a law that's already on the books, he pushes Congress to repeal or rewrite. He has absolutely no authority to just ignore the laws that we have, and the fact that he is actively pushing actions that go directly against those laws in unconstitutional. It's dictatorial behavior and he should be impeached for violating his Constitutional duties.

He should at least be tried in court; however, judging from the general responses in here, many Americans really don't care, or they'll say "yeah at least he's not as authoritarian as Kim Jong Il!"

It's peculiar. When the executive sets an acceptable trend of flaunting the constitution, and when more and more Americans overlook that, then those Americans deserve nearly all the outcomes from such authoritarian policies.

That's pretty much what Obama said when he got elected...that he would just continue to do what Bush was doing and continue to flaunt the constitution, because all the smart Americans would defend him and say "Well, Bush did it, so that makes it okay", and of course it will be okay for the next president, based on "Obama did it" and then the next prez and the next......

Brilliant!

Well, Neoteny was implying pages ago that if there's this precedent for doing so, then it's okay.

Isn't that a delightful way of explaining to the Libyan parents that their children were bombed by Yours Truly because the executive branch, you know, does this kind of thing, so it's acceptable, lololol?

Eventually, the apologists on either political party side will have to accept the unintended conseuquences of their incorrect attitude toward the executive branch.

Hey now, by "precedent" I was talking about legal challenges to this sort of executive policy. I didn't intend to imply that it was good, or ok, or that I agree with its use. Just that it is not currently illegal.

Ass.

So your stance is that the legality of Obama's decision is currently undecided? If that was your stance, then why did you type so many paragraphs? Something's not adding up.

My stance is that the legality of the issue is pretty clear. It's not illegal, regardless of whether you like the move. It was also a nice move politically, since it speaks to an important voter base, while alienating only those who are already alienated, all the while not having to spend any effort to actually change anything.

I type so much because I like seeing myself talk.

[Night Strike]

In Justice Scalia's dissent on Arizona SB1070, he slammed Obama's immigration actions and offered it as proof as to why the majority was incorrect in their decision (and why Arizona's arguments directly hinted at such a position as we have today.

But there has come to pass, and is with us today, the specter that Arizona and the States that support it predicted: A Federal Govern-ment that does not want to enforce the immigration laws as written, and leaves the States’ borders unprotected against immigrants whom those laws would exclude. So the issue is a stark one. Are the sovereign States at the mercy of the Federal Executive’s refusal to enforce the Nation’s immigration laws?

The more broad section of his discussion on this topic

The brief for the Government in this case asserted that “the Executive Branch’s ability to exercise discretion and set priorities is particularly important because of the need to allocate scarce enforcement resources wisely.” Brief for United States 21. Of course there is no reason why the Federal Executive’s need to allocate its scarce enforcement resources should disable Arizona from devoting its re-sources to illegal immigration in Arizona that in its view the Federal Executive has given short shrift. Despite Congress’s prescription that “the immigration laws of the United States should be enforced vigorously and uniformly,” IRCA §115, 100 Stat. 3384, Arizona asserts without contradiction and with supporting citations: “[I]n the last decade federal enforcement efforts have focused primarily on areas in California and Texas, leaving Arizona’s border to suffer from comparative neglect. The result has been the funneling of an in-creasing tide of illegal border crossings into Arizona. Indeed, over the past decade, over a third of the Na-tion’s illegal border crossings occurred in Arizona.” Brief for Petitioners 2–3 (footnote omitted). Must Arizona’s ability to protect its borders yield to the reality that Congress has provided inadequate funding for federal enforcement—or, even worse, to the Executive’s unwise targeting of that funding?

But leave that aside. It has become clear that federal enforcement priorities—in the sense of priorities based on the need to allocate “scarce enforcement resources”—is not the problem here. After this case was argued and while it was under consideration, the Secretary of Homeland Security announced a program exempting from immi- gration enforcement some 1.4 million illegal immigrants under the age of 30.4 If an individual unlawfully present in the United States “• came to the United States under the age of sixteen; “• has continuously resided in the United States for at least five years . . . , “• is currently in school, has graduated from high school, has obtained a general education develop-ment certificate, or is an honorably discharged veteran . . . , “• has not been convicted of a [serious crime]; and “• is not above the age of thirty,”5 then U. S. immigration officials have been directed to “defe[r] action” against such individual “for a period of two years, subject to renewal.”6 The husbanding of scarce enforcement resources can hardly be the justification for this, since the considerable administrative cost of conduct-ing as many as 1.4 million background checks, and ruling on the biennial requests for dispensation that the nonenforcement program envisions, will necessarily be deducted from immigration enforcement. The President said at a news conference that the new program is “the right thing to do” in light of Congress’s failure to pass the Administra-tion’s proposed revision of the Immigration Act.7 Perhaps it is, though Arizona may not think so. But to say, as the Court does, that Arizona contradicts federal law by enforcing applications of the Immigration Act that the President declines to enforce boggles the mind. The Court opinion’s looming specter of inutterable horror—“[i]f §3 of the Arizona statute were valid, every State could give itself independent authority to prosecute fed- eral registration violations,” ante, at 10—seems to me not so horrible and even less looming. But there has come to pass, and is with us today, the specter that Arizona and the States that support it predicted: A Federal Govern-ment that does not want to enforce the immigration laws as written, and leaves the States’ borders unprotected against immigrants whom those laws would exclude. So the issue is a stark one. Are the sovereign States at the mercy of the Federal Executive’s refusal to enforce the Nation’s immigration laws? A good way of answering that question is to ask: Would the States conceivably have entered into the Union if the Constitution itself contained the Court’s holding? Today’s judgment surely fails that test. At the Constitutional Convention of 1787, the delegates contended with “the jealousy of the states with regard to their sovereignty.” 1 Records of the Federal Convention 19 (M. Farrand ed. 1911) (statement of Edmund Randolph). Through ratifica-tion of the fundamental charter that the Convention pro-duced, the States ceded much of their sovereignty to the Federal Government. But much of it remained jealously guarded—as reflected in the innumerable proposals that never left Independence Hall. Now, imagine a provision— perhaps inserted right after Art. I, §8, cl. 4, the Naturalization Clause—which included among the enumerated powers of Congress “To establish Limitations upon Immi-gration that will be exclusive and that will be enforced only to the extent the President deems appropriate.” The delegates to the Grand Convention would have rushed to the exits. As is often the case, discussion of the dry legalities that are the proper object of our attention suppresses the very human realities that gave rise to the suit. Arizona bears the brunt of the country’s illegal immigration problem. Its citizens feel themselves under siege by large numbers of illegal immigrants who invade their property, strain their social services, and even place their lives in jeopardy. Federal officials have been unable to remedy the problem, and indeed have recently shown that they are unwilling to do so. Thousands of Arizona’s estimated 400,000 illegal immigrants—including not just children but men and women under 30—are now assured immunity from en-forcement, and will be able to compete openly with Arizona citizens for employment. Arizona has moved to protect its sovereignty—not in contradiction of federal law, but in complete compliance with it. The laws under challenge here do not extend or revise federal immigration restrictions, but merely enforce those restrictions more effectively. If securing its territory in this fashion is not within the power of Arizona, we should cease referring to it as a sovereign State. I dissent.

Very good for Scalia to stand up for the rule of law and against the dangerous lunacy of what the current administration is doing (and that the majority did not choose to stop).

EDIT: The link is a PDF and takes a while to load: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/interac ... ation-law/

[Night Strike]

And to double down on their refusal to enforce federal laws, the Obama administration has announced that in light of the Supreme Court ruling, they will no longer take calls from local authorities when an illegal immigrant is found in local custody.

Complete lawlessness.

[AndyDufresne]

And to double down on their refusal to enforce federal laws, the Obama administration has announced that in light of the Supreme Court ruling, they will no longer take calls from local authorities when an illegal immigrant is found in local custody.

Complete lawlessness.

I just saw this lawlessness in action, around Atlanta.

show

--Andy

[PLAYER57832]

In Justice Scalia's dissent on Arizona SB1070, he slammed Obama's immigration actions and offered it as proof as to why the majority was incorrect in their decision (and why Arizona's arguments directly hinted at such a position as we have today.

Ah, I see, so legal constitutional opinion only really matters if it agrees with your personal view?

Nice knowing that we now have 2 world experts on the US constitution.. Nightstrike and Phattscotty.
Wonder why you were never appointed to the court?

[PLAYER57832]

@player

It doesn't have to be only about Obama. You're saying that "the SC decides what is constitutional." I'm subtly trying to hint that such a system would be actually fair to the Constitution if these judges were actually objective, not influenced by party loyalties, not susceptible to their own private interests, etc.

Funny you quote yourself there. If I did not answer before, here is my answer.

That would require them to be inhuman. Science Fiction is full of draconiam examples of why we need humans who can look beyond mathematical purity/logic and into the more "ishy" or "grey" areas. What is really at issue here is that humans, unlike any computer program or even law, have the ability to look at the full complex of details. This has always been a fundamental aspect of our judicial system, though there is always a "tug of war" over just how much should be strictly and definitely dictated and how much should be left up to individuals (justices, citizens, elected and unelected government officials, etc.)

A recent ruling, about children convicted of murder, exactly lays out that point. It invalidated manditory life sentances for juveniles who have committed murder, in part, because it took away a judge's ability to look at all the evidence and the individual involved and mitigate the punishment in cases far too complicated to be dictated by a set rule/punishment. The ruling said not so much that a life sentence for a 13 year old who committed murder was flat unreasonable, but that to say this punishment should automatically be applied, regardless of circumstances, was cruel per the constitution and therefore the mandatory sentence provisions were invalid.
[/quote]

I've been skimming through their debate, andI find it funny that player is upset at the SC decision on citizen's united. Earlier she was stating that what the SC decides is Constitutional, so does she have a problem with the US constitution, or with the SC, or what?

The key is "skimming". I recognize that the Supreme Court is the highest court, but I disagree with that decision. Also, note that I am saying "this is wrong", not "Bush/Obama/etc are committing treason" for pushing for ward these policies.

Pretty BIG difference.
Also, If you delve into the arguments, both those of the Supreme Court justices and particularly those Nightstrike has voiced here, you find some pretty serious inconsistancies in Nightstrike's arguments. Basically, if he likes it, it is "constitutional", if he doesn't it is not constitutional. And he decided that Obama was going to be an "illegal president" simply because he dislikes him, and has been declaring just about everything Obama does as illegal or unconstitutional.

As to why and how I draw the distinction between the two cases, I am actually arguing a long-standing earlier set of ideas held by previous courts versus the current ruling, AND, while I am saying "I disagree", I am not declaring anyone supporting those ideas treasonous. They are misguided, very self-serving, and doing something extremely harmful and destructive to our society. However, this is not about obeying or disobeying the constitution.

That type of argument is a VERY fundamental difference. When you realize that the kind of rhetoric Nightstrike is spewing is what large swaths of America are hearing and believing.. a scary difference. Disagreement is how our system works, but denial of fundamental facts and denial of any validity in truly opposing opinions is fanatacism.

[PLAYER57832]

I actually agree, to a point, on the constitutionality. However, there are times when practicality outstrips legalism.

This right here is ALL you need to know about Player's political beliefs. The Constitution be DAMNED if the government decides something is beneficial. .

Nice try, but what you really show is that you would prefer computers and not people to rule us. In fact, this principle is fundamental to our government.. that it is rule by PEOPLE, guided by laws and not a bunch of mathematical formulae.

There was a time when blacks were considered "non people" just because those in power, most of society thought that OK. Then things changed, and the justices changed their position. I know you agree with that change, you have said so many times.. but also quickly claimed any such arguments were "irrelevant" to your current opinions about the constitution.

On the other side, we have the whole "police action" versus "war" issue. I strongly suspect you would more or less agree with me that Congress, not the president, is the one to declare war, that this side-swiping of that fundamental principle by calling wars "police actions" is not really what the founding fathers had in mind, is plain wrong. That said, it has been used to such gain by various previous administrations, it is highly unlikely to be ruled invalid now. Also, the point made back then was essentially that if this particular method was ruled invalid, presidents would use other methods to start wars and so it was better to just let this bit stay. (point not made directly by the Supreme Court, bu widely discussed in unofficial places)

BOTH are cases of changing the way the constitution is viewed. Both are precedent now followed(caveat for greekdog, other legal experts.. I mean "precedent" in the common useage -- set the standard, not the legal exact definition of legal precedent from the Supreme Court ). In one case, I have seen you argue that the change was valid/needed. In the other.. not.

Now, that is just the surface. Delve into each and I believe there ARE fundamental differences. But, that is what human beings are able to do, draw differences in situations that might superficially seem the same.

If you want to pick one thing that is destroying this country today, increasing our debt, you would have to pick healthcare. Not perhaps symptomatically, but causually. (it is the cause, not the symptom -- increased debt and inbalance of power and wealth are symptoms). People will budget well, save, etc... BUT when they know that the next illness is going to blow it all to pieces, why bother? For the overwhelming majority of Americans, not just the uninsured and underinsured, but those with currently good insurance that will "expire" as soon as those old life time limits are reached (one major illness/injury will do that). Every other country on Earth does better at health care than us. We USED to be best at research, but even that is starting to change, in part because we have not kept up our education and in part becuase our system is so heavily oriented now toward profit and not basic medical advances. We need a truly universal system. But, the Repubs and Tea Partiers, even the Liberaterians all have made that sound so terrible that implementing such a system became impossible. As noted above, this was a compromise. It was a compromise agreed upon by congress.. not, as you like to claim, implemented unilaterally by Obama. If the Supreme Court invalidates this COMPROMISE, then it will be overruling not Obama, but CONGRESS. That is its constitutional position. However, for it to do so in this particular case will result in a huge disaster unless they take great care to validate/make an easy path for some other method.

In the case of immigration, the Supreme Court actually said that the Executive Branch is given this authority under the constitution. Congress, but not states, can change that. They have not. BUT.. you are not railing against Congress, it is Obama that you wish to claim is "acting against the constitution".

Again, all you care about is being anti-Obama. Your virulance is so intense that it is very hard to believe there is a really honest motive. You were against him before he implemented even a single policy... attacking him for an imagined "lack of citizenship". This is not a debate about Obama or any of his policies. The real debate here is which big business entities get to stay in charge. Obama lost favor because he actually listened to people outside of the big corporate establishment (albiet to a smaller extent than most of us not to the far right would wish). THAT was his real "crime" ... he was not completely promoting big business.

[Night Strike]

In Justice Scalia's dissent on Arizona SB1070, he slammed Obama's immigration actions and offered it as proof as to why the majority was incorrect in their decision (and why Arizona's arguments directly hinted at such a position as we have today.

Ah, I see, so legal constitutional opinion only really matters if it agrees with your personal view?

Nice knowing that we now have 2 world experts on the US constitution.. Nightstrike and Phattscotty.
Wonder why you were never appointed to the court?

Just because my personal view aligns with the truth and the correct view of the Constitution does not mean that it's my view that matters. What matters is the truth about the original intent of the Constitution, and Scalia was completely correct in his dissent: no state would have ever ratified the Constitution if it knew that in the future, the federal government would refuse to enforce its responsibilities and would willfully leave the state unprotected. States are still autonomous governments and have only given up some of their authority to form a federal government, precisely those powers outlined in the Constitution. The current federal government is working to take ALL of their authority away.

If you want to pick one thing that is destroying this country today, increasing our debt, you would have to pick healthcare. Not perhaps symptomatically, but causually.

Yet you support systems that will increase that debt precisely because the government takes over all control of health care. And then the only way for the government to cut down those costs is to cut coverage to people to get us to the horrible systems of Canada and the UK. I reject the notion that the government is the solution to our problem. It is the government that has caused this problem and is making it worse. We have to have REAL reforms of our health care system: true publishing of medical costs, selling insurance across state lines and allowing individuals more choices in coverage, replacing the employer-based health insurance system with one where individuals choose what they want and need, and instituting TORT reforms that will save tons of money by cutting out tests that are completely unnecessary but are currently done simply to avoid lawsuits.


By the way, I never said that Obama unilaterally enacted his healthcare plan nor did I ever say he wasn't a US citizen. However, you clearly did not pay attention to what really happened a week and a half ago because Obama clearly instituted the DREAM Act even though it was never passed by Congress. THAT is where the executive branch has overstepped its Constitutional role, and it is also what Justice Scalia completely excoriated in his dissent.

[Woodruff]

In Justice Scalia's dissent on Arizona SB1070, he slammed Obama's immigration actions and offered it as proof as to why the majority was incorrect in their decision (and why Arizona's arguments directly hinted at such a position as we have today.

Ah, I see, so legal constitutional opinion only really matters if it agrees with your personal view?

Nice knowing that we now have 2 world experts on the US constitution.. Nightstrike and Phattscotty.
Wonder why you were never appointed to the court?

Just because my personal view aligns with the truth and the correct view of the Constitution does not mean that it's my view that matters. What matters is the truth about the original intent of the Constitution, and Scalia was completely correct in his dissent

Because Night Strike knows the Constitution better than the Supreme Court.

[AndyDufresne]

Scalia is one of the more interesting justices. He always seems like he's on the verge of breaking down or a tantrum, and he can never seem to understand why someone else would have an opposing understanding or view.


--Andy

[Gypsys Kiss]

Just because my personal view aligns with the truth and the correct view of the Constitution does not mean that it's my view that matters. What matters is the truth about the original intent of the Constitution, and Scalia was completely correct in his dissent

“A truth that's told with bad intent beats all the lies you can invent.”

William Blake

[Phatscotty]

[PLAYER57832]

In Justice Scalia's dissent on Arizona SB1070, he slammed Obama's immigration actions and offered it as proof as to why the majority was incorrect in their decision (and why Arizona's arguments directly hinted at such a position as we have today.

Ah, I see, so legal constitutional opinion only really matters if it agrees with your personal view?

Nice knowing that we now have 2 world experts on the US constitution.. Nightstrike and Phattscotty.
Wonder why you were never appointed to the court?

Just because my personal view aligns with the truth and the correct view of the Constitution does not mean that it's my view that matters.

LOL.. but see, you seem to think you are the only one capable of understanding what IS correct.

What matters is the truth about the original intent of the Constitution, and Scalia was completely correct in his dissent: no state would have ever ratified the Constitution if it knew that in the future, the federal government would refuse to enforce its responsibilities and would willfully leave the state unprotected. States are still autonomous governments and have only given up some of their authority to form a federal government, precisely those powers outlined in the Constitution. The current federal government is working to take ALL of their authority away.

LOL.. I believe this issue was largely decided, oh say around 1868..... but go ahead and claim the civil war is moot. See, that's the real magic of our system, it allows for change. There were, after all only 13 colonies and the only form of government many could really envision was a monarchy. Any departure from that was "new territory". They had formed their own independent governments and, yes, were reluctant to cede that power. The initial union was not much of a union. However, to be a real nation you cannot be a nation divided into 2,never mind 13 or 50 different parts. Matters of immigration were ALWAYS given to the federal government to decide, not the states.

But go ahead and continue to prove me correct -- you could care less about real constitutionality or even the actual historical arguments of the signatories .... all you care about is your own views.

If you want to pick one thing that is destroying this country today, increasing our debt, you would have to pick healthcare. Not perhaps symptomatically, but causually.

Yet you support systems that will increase that debt precisely because the government takes over all control of health care. And then the only way for the government to cut down those costs is to cut coverage to people to get us to the horrible systems of Canada and the UK.

[sigh] since you INSIST on ignoring any evidence to the contrary (presented to you multiple times by multiple people in multiple forms in various healthcare threads... you might believe that, but the rest of the world happens to prove otherwise. And, the UK and Canada are hardly the only countries in the world. (though at one time, the British Empire came close ).

I reject the notion that the government is the solution to our problem.

Good, because I don't believe that either. PEOPLE are the solution, not corporations. The government just sets the rules so people can do that without corporations taking all the pie, the balls and the sweets for themselves, leaving us just a few crumbs and stale turkey.

It is the government that has caused this problem and is making it worse.

I healthcare? or in general?

Either way, the government doesn't think. The government is a response to what people demand. Right now, corporations are demanding, and getting, a LOT. The rest of us are taking it in the shorts. But hey, who cares about a little thing like choice and freedom.

We have to have REAL reforms of our health care system: true publishing of medical costs, selling insurance across state lines and allowing individuals more choices in coverage, replacing the employer-based health insurance system with one where individuals choose what they want and need, and instituting TORT reforms that will save tons of money by cutting out tests that are completely unnecessary but are currently done simply to avoid lawsuits.

Published medical costs -- you were against this in the healthcare thread, for "free market" reasons. But OK, sure. The inhibitor, though, is not the "nasty government", it is fully private insurance companies and private medical corporations. I could get into how the costs for allowed MedicareMedicaid reimbursements are set, but it would go way off topic. (start another thread if you want and I will try to pop in and answer)

Selling insurance across state lines -- whoaa, but what about individual state rights? See, the problem is that each state can set its own insurance guidelines, medical standards (individual licenses, etc). So, are you really saying you don't want states to have that control? OR are you really saying, like the big corporations, that you would be happy to have everyone get policies as far from their homes as possible to make everything from filing greivances to litigation nearly impossible for average people (already pretty difficult, I add -- unless you are talking injury claims, which is a very different thing, indeed!).

Allowing individuals more choices -- yep, the insurance exchanges were a decent idea, if they live up to the promises. Agree there, but here I thought you were against everything in Obama care?

Lose the employer-based system. DEFINITELY AGREE! Again, pretty much what either the exchanges (in the healthcare reform act) OR socialized medicine would accomplish. There are other models. Discussed pretty fully in the healthcare threads.

TORT reform -- this is really a red herring issue. The problem is that there is no current system of culpability, just "sue for damages". That doesn't work. It doesn't work from the victim's side becuase money doesn't really make up for a serious injury and it doesn't work from the doctor's end because what really happens is that the insurance company of a few bad eggs (or doctors who happened to err on a patient who happened to get a great attorney), really not penalizing that doctor to severely even, and passes on the costs to all the responsible doctors. BUT.. to let the whole system go unchecked is not OK, either. Few people really go into medicine because they want to hurt people. Even while most want to make money, that is not all they are in the profession for, either. (not saying they are entirely altruistic, but the stereotype of the money-grubbing doctor is mostly incorrect). HOWEVER, the system is just plain screwed up. Personally, I like the Geisenger model, though it is not entirely perfect, either. There are a lot of things I would like to see, but it would take too long to detail it all.

By the way, I never said that Obama unilaterally enacted his healthcare plan

You just conveniently ignore congress and blame Obama...

nor did I ever say he wasn't a US citizen.

putting a pretty fine line on it, there. You have questioned the birth certificate.

However, you clearly did not pay attention to what really happened a week and a half ago because Obama clearly instituted the DREAM Act even though it was never passed by Congress. THAT is where the executive branch has overstepped its Constitutional role, and it is also what Justice Scalia completely excoriated in his dissent.

No, he enacted the portions of the act that are within the Executive branch of the government's power to do. AND, the Supreme Court affirmed that he had that right.

But, as I said above.. you only pay attention to the constitution when its interpreted the way YOU think it ought to be.

[Night Strike]

Scalia is one of the more interesting justices. He always seems like he's on the verge of breaking down or a tantrum, and he can never seem to understand why someone else would have an opposing understanding or view.


--Andy

That's because too many of the other justices don't actually rule on the Constitution. As far as I know, Scalia makes his decisions based on the actual text and original intent of the Constitution and not the random case law that has come since. We need more justices like him.

[BigBallinStalin]

My stance is that the legality of the issue is pretty clear. It's not illegal, regardless of whether you like the move. It was also a nice move politically, since it speaks to an important voter base, while alienating only those who are already alienated, all the while not having to spend any effort to actually change anything.

I type so much because I like seeing myself talk.

Keep typing as much as you like, bAby. I love seeing yourself talk.

[BigBallinStalin]

Yeah! It's anarcho-capitalism! YAY!!

-BBS

[BigBallinStalin]

You do realize that drug testing of welfare recipients has been determined, on a number of occasions, to be unConstitutional, right? How do you juxtapose that with your alleged strict adherence to the Constitution?

how is it unconstitutional? just curious.

Suspicionless searches against a person are deemed unconsitutional via the Fourth Amendment. This is fairly basic.

Amendment IV states, and I quote:

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 Oat or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

This relates to property which one already owns.

1) Suppose all claims for receiving welfare are made by those who have never received Check A under Welfare Program A. Does the constitution permit the testing of these new, applying recipients? I think we would have to say "yes" because Amendment IV no longer applies since these applicants have never received such property.

2) And, do welfare recipients actually own their welfare checks? How do property rights work in the current scenario? It seems that the current checks are connected to some contract which the welfare recipient signs. When the contract ends, or has to be renewed, at that time, the former recipient doesn't own that property, to which he or she is re-applying for. In that case, see the last sentence in (1), i.e. Amendment IV is no longer relevant.

[AndyDufresne]

Scalia is one of the more interesting justices. He always seems like he's on the verge of breaking down or a tantrum, and he can never seem to understand why someone else would have an opposing understanding or view.


--Andy

That's because too many of the other justices don't actually rule on the Constitution. As far as I know, Scalia makes his decisions based on the actual text and original intent of the Constitution and not the random case law that has come since. We need more justices like him.

His interpretation of the actual text. As far as I know.


--Andy

[Woodruff]

You do realize that drug testing of welfare recipients has been determined, on a number of occasions, to be unConstitutional, right? How do you juxtapose that with your alleged strict adherence to the Constitution?

how is it unconstitutional? just curious.

Suspicionless searches against a person are deemed unconsitutional via the Fourth Amendment. This is fairly basic.

Amendment IV states, and I quote:

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 Oat or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

This relates to property which one already owns.

1) Suppose all claims for receiving welfare are made by those who have never received Check A under Welfare Program A. Does the constitution permit the testing of these new, applying recipients? I think we would have to say "yes" because Amendment IV no longer applies since these applicants have never received such property.

2) And, do welfare recipients actually own their welfare checks? How do property rights work in the current scenario? It seems that the current checks are connected to some contract which the welfare recipient signs. When the contract ends, or has to be renewed, at that time, the former recipient doesn't own that property, to which he or she is re-applying for. In that case, see the last sentence in (1), i.e. Amendment IV is no longer relevant.

Do you "already own" your own pee or not? I'm referring to the unlawful search and seizure of your person without suspicion. It's easily covered by the Fourth Amendment.