Obama Admits His Immigration Action is Unconstitutional

[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.

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.

Oh yeah, good point. However, the scenario which I'm describing is different. It would only apply to new applicants and maybe even those who re-apply to welfare benefits. This isn't a search and seize operation because it's a voluntary contract, so I fail to see how the 4th Amendment would apply:

For example, in order to receive X, you must comply to the following rules: urine tests.


In order to retain a job at the federal government, you must agree to drug tests (unless you work within a specific department of the CDC, which IIRC is the only federal bureaucratic department that does not require drug tests). So, in order to receive this job (or welfare benefits), you would have to agree to the following conditions as stated in the contract.

1. What's wrong with that?
2. How is this contract relevant to the 4th Amendment? There's no "search and seizure" occurring. It's just conditions stated in the contract before someone agrees to get the goodies.

[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.

Oh yeah, good point. However, the scenario which I'm describing is different. It would only apply to new applicants and maybe even those who re-apply to welfare benefits. This isn't a search and seize operation because it's a voluntary contract, so I fail to see how the 4th Amendment would apply:

For example, in order to receive X, you must comply to the following rules: urine tests.


In order to retain a job at the federal government, you must agree to drug tests (unless you work within a specific department of the CDC, which IIRC is the only federal bureaucratic department that does not require drug tests). So, in order to receive this job (or welfare benefits), you would have to agree to the following conditions as stated in the contract.

1. What's wrong with that?
2. How is this contract relevant to the 4th Amendment? There's no "search and seizure" occurring. It's just conditions stated in the contract before someone agrees to get the goodies.

As I understand the situation, it has been found unconstitutional on the basis that it is still "a search without suspicion", just as requiring drug testing for jobs (which is also simply a contract) that do not have a safety/security aspect is also considered to be unconstitutional. That at least has been the grounds on previous rulings.

[BigBallinStalin]

Hmm, that's interesting. If safety is the key issue, and if illicit drugs are deemed unsafe for the communities of the welfare recipients, then doesn't it follow that drug testing welfare recipients in the name of safety/security would be "constitutionally sound" (for lack of a better term which I forget)?


*Note: this justification for drug-testing would be applicable to all recipients of wealth transferred from the government revenues.

[Woodruff]

Hmm, that's interesting. If safety is the key issue, and if illicit drugs are deemed unsafe for the communities of the welfare recipients, then doesn't it follow that drug testing welfare recipients in the name of safety/security would be "constitutionally sound" (for lack of a better term which I forget)?

I'm simply pointing out why it has been ruled unconstitutional in the past, and the similarity it has to contracting for jobs requiring the same basis of safety/security.

It seems to me that if one were to make the argument you are above, then you could open up the possibility that citizens off the street could be randomly drug tested as well. That wouldn't seem to do much for personal privacy. I understand the difference in "receipt of something", but if the primary driving force is the safety/security of the community, bam...the religious right now has their beachhead.

[john9blue]

the only relevant difference between a company requiring their employees to do drug testing, and the state requiring welfare recipients to do drug testing, is that the welfare recipients don't do anything beneficial for the state. why does that get them off the hook?

that is a poor argument against DTWR IMO

[BigBallinStalin]

Hmm, that's interesting. If safety is the key issue, and if illicit drugs are deemed unsafe for the communities of the welfare recipients, then doesn't it follow that drug testing welfare recipients in the name of safety/security would be "constitutionally sound" (for lack of a better term which I forget)?

I'm simply pointing out why it has been ruled unconstitutional in the past, and the similarity it has to contracting for jobs requiring the same basis of safety/security.

At this point, for clarification, you'd have to site specific cases which support your position. Until then, I remain unconvinced for your memory might have led you astray.

It seems to me that if one were to make the argument you are above, then you could open up the possibility that citizens off the street could be randomly drug tested as well. That wouldn't seem to do much for personal privacy. I understand the difference in "receipt of something", but if the primary driving force is the safety/security of the community, bam...the religious right now has their beachhead.

This doesn't apply because your scenario overlooks the new circumstances in my scenario. In your scenario, no voluntary contract was agreed to; therefore, the government would do such-and-such. Again, my position maintains that in order to receive welfare (additional or continued) benefits, one must agree to the new terms and conditions (i.e. drug testing). This would be a new contract for those applying for such benefits for the first time and in instances where they re-apply. In no way am I advocating for current recipients to be drug tested, for this new contract has yet to apply to them.

[BigBallinStalin]

the only relevant difference between a company requiring their employees to do drug testing, and the state requiring welfare recipients to do drug testing, is that the welfare recipients don't do anything beneficial for the state. why does that get them off the hook?

that is a poor argument against DTWR IMO

Hey, now. Surely you are aware of the multiplier effect! If people are given money, then this money will contribute once again to the economy; therefore, the economy would grow! Do not ask about unseen costs, bureaucratic knowledge and incentive problems, or the costs of rent-seeking--please, good sir.

[PLAYER57832]

the only relevant difference between a company requiring their employees to do drug testing, and the state requiring welfare recipients to do drug testing, is that the welfare recipients don't do anything beneficial for the state. why does that get them off the hook?

that is a poor argument against DTWR IMO

Except, companies are not allowed to just test any employee, randomly. They have to have a real safety reason to do so. At least, that is the theoretical ruling. Reality can sometimes differ. For example, someone giving food to others might be concieved to be a potential health risk to anyone getting the food. Most people can accept that airline pilots ought to be tested, but the local McDonald's worker? Well.. yeah, but it starts to get into the realm of "when does it end" and, as noted above, a serious threat to privacy.

Its pretty ironic, for all the talk about freedom, it is not the left, but the right that has been slowly and surely taking our rights away.. and often so gradually few people bother to protest. Of course, the "real threat", see is this "liberal elite" -- that group to which no one can really point or identify, but whom are to be blamed for most of our current ills.

[Woodruff]

the only relevant difference between a company requiring their employees to do drug testing, and the state requiring welfare recipients to do drug testing, is that the welfare recipients don't do anything beneficial for the state. why does that get them off the hook?

that is a poor argument against DTWR IMO

You seem to have actually overlooked the crux of the position - try again.

[Woodruff]

Hmm, that's interesting. If safety is the key issue, and if illicit drugs are deemed unsafe for the communities of the welfare recipients, then doesn't it follow that drug testing welfare recipients in the name of safety/security would be "constitutionally sound" (for lack of a better term which I forget)?

I'm simply pointing out why it has been ruled unconstitutional in the past, and the similarity it has to contracting for jobs requiring the same basis of safety/security.

At this point, for clarification, you'd have to site specific cases which support your position. Until then, I remain unconvinced for your memory might have led you astray.

Sure, that's reasonable. Marker for coming back to this - I'm at lunch right now, and don't have much time left to research this, but I will come back to it. Ok, my crack research staff (I'm so lazy I just put the question to another forum) agrees with you:
http://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/vwy30/question_about_drug_testing_for_employment/

[john9blue]

the only relevant difference between a company requiring their employees to do drug testing, and the state requiring welfare recipients to do drug testing, is that the welfare recipients don't do anything beneficial for the state. why does that get them off the hook?

that is a poor argument against DTWR IMO

You seem to have actually overlooked the crux of the position - try again.

enlighten me then, oh enlightened one

[Phatscotty]

If you live in someone elses house, you have to follow their rules.

[PLAYER57832]

If you live in someone elses house, you have to follow their rules.

So you live in China, now? or was it Canada to which you moved?

I continue to live in the US, under my government and in my own house.

[Woodruff]

the only relevant difference between a company requiring their employees to do drug testing, and the state requiring welfare recipients to do drug testing, is that the welfare recipients don't do anything beneficial for the state. why does that get them off the hook?

that is a poor argument against DTWR IMO

You seem to have actually overlooked the crux of the position - try again.

enlighten me then, oh enlightened one

We're discussing the fact that both are contracts of a sort.

[chang50]

If you live in someone elses house, you have to follow their rules.

Just like the American revolutionaries did when they overthrew British rule?That was different because??There would be no USA without the overthrow of the then rule of law.

[Phatscotty]

If you live in someone elses house, you have to follow their rules.

Just like the American revolutionaries did when they overthrew British rule?That was different because??There would be no USA without the overthrow of the then rule of law.

The revolutionaries actions were a response to the overthrow of law committed by the British. They did not overthrow law.

USA legally overthrew a tyrant.

[Night Strike]

If you live in someone elses house, you have to follow their rules.

Just like the American revolutionaries did when they overthrew British rule?That was different because??There would be no USA without the overthrow of the then rule of law.

The American Revolution was British citizens wishing to become citizens of a new nation. Under your analogy, it's Mexican (and many other countries) citizens wishing to take over someone else's country. Big difference there.

[Phatscotty]

Chang that wasn't the point anyways.

The point was if you are dependent on someone else, you don't get to make the rules that the person taking care of you/helping you out has to follow. The person who is helping you decides how much help they can/will give to you, how long they will let you stay in their house, how much food they can afford to give you etc....

If you are dependent on the system, the providers and creators of the system make the rules, and in your dependence you have to follow them. That is what dependence means. So, if you want to get free government money, and if a state decides that you have to meet certain criteria to qualify for that money, then that's what you have to do. If you don't like it, then you can always make a living independently.

[chang50]

If you live in someone elses house, you have to follow their rules.

Just like the American revolutionaries did when they overthrew British rule?That was different because??There would be no USA without the overthrow of the then rule of law.

The American Revolution was British citizens wishing to become citizens of a new nation. Under your analogy, it's Mexican (and many other countries) citizens wishing to take over someone else's country. Big difference there.

What about the rights of the British citizens who remained loyal to the crown?

[Phatscotty]

If you live in someone elses house, you have to follow their rules.

Just like the American revolutionaries did when they overthrew British rule?That was different because??There would be no USA without the overthrow of the then rule of law.

The American Revolution was British citizens wishing to become citizens of a new nation. Under your analogy, it's Mexican (and many other countries) citizens wishing to take over someone else's country. Big difference there.

What about the rights of the British citizens who remained loyal to the crown?

They went and lived in the country where the Crown ruled? The Crown took rights away from all colonists. There were no exceptions for Loyalists.

Everyone had to pay for the Stamp Act. Everyone had to buy the Crowns Tea. Everyone was banned from creating and using their own money. Everyone's home was at risk of being quartered by Redcoats.

[AndyDufresne]

If you live in someone elses house, you have to follow their rules.

Just like the American revolutionaries did when they overthrew British rule?That was different because??There would be no USA without the overthrow of the then rule of law.

The American Revolution was British citizens wishing to become citizens of a new nation. Under your analogy, it's Mexican (and many other countries) citizens wishing to take over someone else's country. Big difference there.

What about the rights of the British citizens who remained loyal to the crown?

They went and lived in the country where the Crown ruled?

The vast majority of Loyalists from the American Revolution stayed, historians think about 10% emigrated I think.


--Andy

[Woodruff]

Chang that wasn't the point anyways.

The point was if you are dependent on someone else, you don't get to make the rules that the person taking care of you/helping you out has to follow. The person who is helping you decides how much help they can/will give to you, how long they will let you stay in their house, how much food they can afford to give you etc....

If you are dependent on the system, the providers and creators of the system make the rules, and in your dependence you have to follow them. That is what dependence means. So, if you want to get free government money, and if a state decides that you have to meet certain criteria to qualify for that money, then that's what you have to do. If you don't like it, then you can always make a living independently.

You know...by that logic, you must follow the laws that the government has created (as someone who is dependent on the system), so you should immediately stop complaining about this and ObamaCare. But I'm sure you don't see your statements as hypocritical, right?

[Woodruff]

If you live in someone elses house, you have to follow their rules.

Just like the American revolutionaries did when they overthrew British rule?That was different because??There would be no USA without the overthrow of the then rule of law.

The American Revolution was British citizens wishing to become citizens of a new nation. Under your analogy, it's Mexican (and many other countries) citizens wishing to take over someone else's country. Big difference there.

What about the rights of the British citizens who remained loyal to the crown?

They went and lived in the country where the Crown ruled?

The vast majority of Loyalists from the American Revolution stayed, historians think about 10% emigrated I think.

Don't you go confusing Phatscotty with facts now...

[john9blue]

Chang that wasn't the point anyways.

The point was if you are dependent on someone else, you don't get to make the rules that the person taking care of you/helping you out has to follow. The person who is helping you decides how much help they can/will give to you, how long they will let you stay in their house, how much food they can afford to give you etc....

If you are dependent on the system, the providers and creators of the system make the rules, and in your dependence you have to follow them. That is what dependence means. So, if you want to get free government money, and if a state decides that you have to meet certain criteria to qualify for that money, then that's what you have to do. If you don't like it, then you can always make a living independently.

You know...by that logic, you must follow the laws that the government has created (as someone who is dependent on the system), so you should immediately stop complaining about this and ObamaCare. But I'm sure you don't see your statements as hypocritical, right?

sorry to ruin your "gotcha" moment, but there's a difference between disobeying laws and campaigning to change the laws.

[Woodruff]

Chang that wasn't the point anyways.

The point was if you are dependent on someone else, you don't get to make the rules that the person taking care of you/helping you out has to follow. The person who is helping you decides how much help they can/will give to you, how long they will let you stay in their house, how much food they can afford to give you etc....

If you are dependent on the system, the providers and creators of the system make the rules, and in your dependence you have to follow them. That is what dependence means. So, if you want to get free government money, and if a state decides that you have to meet certain criteria to qualify for that money, then that's what you have to do. If you don't like it, then you can always make a living independently.

You know...by that logic, you must follow the laws that the government has created (as someone who is dependent on the system), so you should immediately stop complaining about this and ObamaCare. But I'm sure you don't see your statements as hypocritical, right?

sorry to ruin your "gotcha" moment, but there's a difference between disobeying laws and campaigning to change the laws.

Phatscotty is explicitly saying that those who are dependent on those who make the rules must accept what they get from those who make the rules. Here, let me actually quote it for you:
"If you are dependent on the system, the providers and creators of the system make the rules, and in your dependence you have to follow them. That is what dependence means."

But it's nice of you to jump to his defense again, you moderate you!