- Joined
- Feb 4, 2013
- Messages
- 28,659
- Reaction score
- 18,803
- Location
- Charleston, South Carolina
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Very Conservative
It is flawed because it makes an asssumption, and constitutes an illegal and unconstitutional search of a person based on no evidence of a crime.
Absolutely ridiculous "Judicial Activist" logic at its worst. How on Earth does it count as "unreasonable search and seizure" to require that those who receive federal aid for poverty not be under the influence of substances that might adversely affect their judgement and ability to wisely spend the funds they receive? The Government is under absolutely no constitutional obligation to provide financial aid to the poor in the first place.
It is a voluntary program that participants sign on to in exchange for handouts. As far as I'm concerned, the state should have the "right" to refuse service to whomever it damn well pleases, because the recipients have no real "right" to the handouts the state provides.
As a matter of fact, it more or less already does. There is a reason why one must be under a certain income level to even be eligible for welfare in the first place, after all.
I could never be a lawyer. Bull**** semantics and sophistry have a tendency to simply piss me off. :lol:
Last edited: