Latest Headlines
- Cause Of ‘Major’ Fire At Ascend Remains Under Investigation
- Fire Destroys Mobile Home Being Used For Storage Near McDavid
- Century’s Small Town Christmas Parade Turns Out Small With Four Entries, No Santa
- Photos: Second Annual Cottage Hill Neighborhood Christmas Parade
- Man Facing Multiple Charges After Escambia County Shooting
- Flomaton Host Free Family Movie Night
- Tate Cheerleaders Win Top Spots In Gulf Breeze Competition
- Need Those Gifts Wrapped? The Tate Band Has You Covered
- Ice Flyers Delight Big Crowd With Thrilling Win Against First-Place Havoc
- Acres Of Christmas Lights, Hayride, Goats In Pajamas At Run-a-muck Ranch In Bratt
Court Sets Hearing On Requiring Drug Tests For Welfare
September 25, 2014
A federal appeals court is scheduled to hear arguments November 20 in a long-running battle about Gov. Rick Scott’s attempt to require drug testing as a condition for people receiving public-assistance benefits.
The 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals this week scheduled the arguments in an appeal filed by the Scott administration after a federal district judge blocked the program, according to an online docket.
The state is seeking to require drug testing for people who receive welfare benefits under the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program.
But it has faced a series of legal setbacks, with U.S. District Judge Mary Scriven in December issuing a 30-page ruling that concluded the urine tests would violate Fourth Amendment protections against unreasonable searches and seizures by the government and that “there is no set of circumstances under which the warrantless, suspicionless drug testing at issue in this case could be constitutionally applied.”
The Scott administration, however, argues in part that drug use can impede the ability of public-assistance beneficiaries to get jobs and also harms families.
The case stems from a 2011 law, which was challenged by the American Civil Liberties Union on behalf of Luis Lebron, a Navy veteran and single father.
by The News Service of Florida
Comments
30 Responses to “Court Sets Hearing On Requiring Drug Tests For Welfare”
I say they get tested and if they do not like it then tough cr*p And for the people saying people buying a gun should be drug tested, why?? It is amazing how the democrats do not like anything that can prevent people from cheating just like voter ID. If someone can take their ID out to get welfare then they can take that out once every two years to vote and if not then they should not vote.
The drug testing is to show the people need the help if they use the welfare money to buy drugs and do not feed their kids how does it help the children the democrats say they care about?? Do you want them to go hungry?? Why do they not CARE??
Gov. Scott will lose this case in November .. Totally unconstitutional ..
REGARDING:
“I am glad you go to the cover of the Constitution to effectively say “we’d rather allow drug/alcohol abusers the ability to purchase and keep weapons that can kill someone without testing than pay for somebody with a drug/alcohol problem to eat, have a roof, or feed a child” “
Gibberish.
The Constitution has no cover. It simply is.
Nor did I say I wanted anyone to purchase and keep weapons.
The Constitution says I have no say in the matter.
Nor did I say I wanted people to go hungry or come out in support of a particular way of helping the needy.
I think the plan is silly, but that doesn’t make it unconstitutional.
AND
“After all, that same document did provide that the government would promote the general welfare, didn’t it?”
No, it said that was the purpose and intent, not the guaranteed result.
“We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”
AND
“And the greater issue is the presumption of guilt by the government, i.e., the need to prove innocence in order to be helped.”
Guilt is for crimes.
The Fourth applies in matters of crime.
Disbursal of benefits is not compelled or a matter of crime and thus the Fourth does not apply.
(Unless the Supreme Court says it does, in which case it does because the Constitution gives them the ultimate say in the matter.)
It’s like when Kanye wants the disabled to prove they’re disabled.
Not smart but not illegal.
David for literacy
REGARDING:
“I have a serious question here. Do State and County Politicians have to take a drug test before they can take office ?”
My answer isn’t serious, but it is accurate:
No, elected officials do not have to take drug tests to take office; they have to convince voters to elect them. This fact probably explains some of their actions.
Are you suggesting those who receive aid should only get it upon a majority vote of the general population? Hard hearted!
David for better people
Mr. Green,
I am glad you go to the cover of the Constitution to effectively say “we’d rather allow drug/alcohol abusers the ability to purchase and keep weapons that can kill someone without testing than pay for somebody with a drug/alcohol problem to eat, have a roof, or feed a child”
After all, that same document did provide that the government would promote the general welfare, didn’t it?
See, we can go round and round throwing the Founding Fathers wisdom at one another, but the real facts are this: it costs the taxpayer more to test for these alleged abuses of the system than to just help the people and deal with cheaters as they are identified.
And the greater issue is the presumption of guilt by the government, i.e., the need to prove innocence in order to be helped. I for one, do not want to give my government the power to say I must prove anything to them without cause. You know, the 4th amendment of the Constitution and all that.
So, we may agree to disagree I’m sure.
REGARDING:
“does the Government simply stay out the way when it requires background checks and waiting periods on firearms ?”
Valid question. The answer is:
NO, IT DOES NOT.
The follow up question SHOULD be:
Is that legal/constitutional?
The answer is obviously:
No, it is not.
We don’t like to ask the question because we are allowing crazy, dangerous people to roam freely and pretending they will be safe to be around if we only don’t sell them guns. Any half-way intelligent person could kill a thousand people and never come near a gun.
Those who would want to do so should not be walking around freely — armed or unarmed.
That is simply silly.
AND
“I am against drug testing period. I feel that it is assuming that you are guilty and you must prove that you are innocent”
You are right. It does make that assumption. But it is not a matter of guilt, rather one of whether or not we wish to give money to certain people. If we do, we can require certain actions on their part but should not require them to take our money or our tests.
AND
“there should be some reasonable suspicion to require someone to give their blood or urine to be tested”
Why?
We aren’t talking about reason, we’re talking about government.
Nonetheless, it is not required, only a requirement for freebies.
David for free dope for dopes,
food, clothing and shelter for the needy
” David for knowing the difference between a right and a privilege ” Sir I very well know the differences between the two.. I recognize that peoples fourth amendment rights are being violated in order to receive the ” Privilege “..
I believe in the sanctity of our privacy and the constitution. That being said, when does illegal behavior justify not taking care of it? Some people will use assistance for what it was intended, and if drug testing is part of the procedure to continue to receive those benefits, then so be it. It’s a small price to pay to receive the help needed. I do think the State should foot the bill. If a person is dirty, then no benefits to “enable” them to continue to bilk the government and the tax payers of $$$$$. You don’t need drugs, cigarettes, alcohol, etc. if you are on benefits. It’s irresponsible and keeps you down. The money could better be used to survive while training for a new job, etc. That’s what it is intended for, anyway, not a generational thing to pass from parents to children. That’s my main problem with welfare receipients who abuse the benefits. BTW, I work for the US Govt. and I have to submit to drug testing because I am in a sensitive job. I don’t mind because I’m not behaving in an illegal manner, and it keeps dirty staff out of the workplace, making it safer for me.
Mr. Green,, does the Government simply stay out the way when it requires background checks and waiting periods on firearms ? I am against drug testing period. I feel that it is assuming that you are guilty and you must prove that you are innocent .. At the very least , there should be some reasonable suspicion to require someone to give their blood or urine to be tested..
I have a serious question here. Do State and County Politicians have to take a drug test before they can take office ?
CONTEMPLATING:
” “Maybe we can also start drug testing People that want to purchase firearms and ammunition ! Cause I sure don’t want drug users to own a gun !”
“Perfect response, but the folks it is directed at will not be able to understand the connection and appreciate the irony.”
The problem with the “perfect response” is that it compares a Constitutional right to a privilege. They are not equal. Further, one requires government simply stay out of the way and the other requires government — and the people — pay the way.
David for knowing the difference between a right and a privilege
Basically people on assistance are receiving gov. money. Yes it’s through our taxes but it’s now gov. money. Putting free enterprise aside and reg co. jobs if you work for the government you must be drug tested when you start and randomly after. So in order to receive a check from the gov you should be tested whether it’s from going to a job, using the system to get back on your feet, or sorry to say sitting on your couch eating steak. Sadly this shouldn’t even be an issue, people using the system to pull out of a hard spot won’t have a problem with drug testing, only those using will.
Hi local resident…just a thought…if you pay in taxes, and say, pay in $500, and with only your standard deductions you get back all $500, that is yours as you say. But what about earned income credit, in addition to, your standard deductions which may include children? That is extra money from the government that, yes, actually did come out of anyone’s pocket who has worked and paid in taxes. Seems to me, since it has changed so much over the years, that everyone pays in, and those who have no children get back less, and those who have three or more get earned income credit and can get back 4K, 5K, and 6K at tax time. So it seems to me that everyone is just paying into an “insurance system” in which anyone can get money back over and above what they actually paid in.
Mark T said:
“Maybe we can also start drug testing People that want to purchase firearms and ammunition ! Cause I sure don’t want drug users to own a gun !”
Perfect response, but the folks it is directed at will not be able to understand the connection and appreciate the irony.
Nicely played, sir.
Mark T, sir, any money I get back as a “refund” from the IRS is mine. It is money I over paid and is due back to me. It’s not coming out of YOUR pocket that you worked hard for!
The way I see it…Government assistance is a PRIVILEGE! Therefore, anyone who is trying to get assistance that we tax payers are forking out, should be drug tested. If they are not willing to get tested they forfeit their privilege, period. Maybe some time in the near future this will cut back on all the ones who want to live off our hard earned money.
Why not drug test who is going to get a tax refund from the IRS. They might go buy drugs with that money and impede their ability to keep their jobs?? How about it Ricky what do you say ???
Maybe we can also start drug testing People that want to purchase firearms and ammunition ! Cause I sure don’t want drug users to own a gun !
I’ll bet there isn’t one of you who is for this blatantly unconstitutional violation of your rights who wouldn’t go ballistic if Rick Scott were trying to outlaw, say, AR-15’s. The Constitution isn’t something you support piecemeal, people, you either support it all or you support none of it, and needing help feeding your family does NOT constitute probable cause to suspect you’re doing drugs. Probable cause that the Constitution REQUIRES before you or your effects or property can be searched.
Folks, reading some of your comments…don’t you guys realize this is like a tornado hitting and then having the hurricane clean it up? In response to some of the comments about if you have to be tested to get a job, then why not be made to get tested to get public assistance? Your are comparing the wrong things. It is not the government who is making people be tested for drugs before employment, it is the company itself. The company doesn’t choose to hire someone who isn’t drug free because the company wants a job done by someone with a clear head, who can think straight about what they are doing. It isn’t the government’s fault. It is call free-enterprise. These companies are free to do their business as they see fit. Then you want to send in the government to clean up the mess of people on drugs to not receive public assistance. This is opening an entirely different can of worms. Just because an employer would prefer not to have someone who may come to work high everyday has nothing to do with someone who is on public assistance. Now does that mean that people who apply for assistance shouldn’t be tested? Who know? So far, to me, that is a separate subject. No, I do not agree that people should sell their food stamps for money for drugs and what have you, but it does seem to fall into illegal search and seizure, given that what someone does in the privacy of their own home is their right. If this law passes, it could be the gateway for other similar laws, and with the muslims on our toes at all times, I would be concerned for the passing of any law that takes away my right to privacy. So…just saying….
People should absolutely be tested if they are going to receive Monetary Benefits that Tax Payers are providing. By having testing, a lot of people will just not show up to apply because they know they will be tested. If there are doubts, then do a “Hair” test, which can provide a much longer graph of drug use. I do not mind helping those in “REAL” need, but am tired of seeing the blinged out phones, fancy clothes and sitting at home doing drugs while drawing Monetary Benefits.
How is it that if the government tests you for drugs “there is no set of circumstances under which the warrantless, suspicionless drug testing at issue in this case could be constitutionally applied”? Yet they take the tax money sent in from my paycheck – WITHOUT MY VOLUNTARY CONSENT (that would be theft if I did it to someone on the street) – and just to get to the point where they CAN take the money from the paycheck that I WORK to EARN, I have to undergo a “warrantless, suspicionless drug” test?
On a more positive note, Eric Holder resigned!
Let’s be honest, this is a waste of time and money. There are to many ways to pass a drug screen.
I feel the state should pick up the tab for the testing up front. I don’t see how it’s a problem them being tested. Don’t file charges if they come up positive like Chez said. Just stop the benefits. They can reapply after being clean for a year.
I will not even explain why, but this won’t happen, nuff said. Don’t get your hopes up.
I’m all for testing for drugs and the rest as Tammy said. But as I recall the person had to pay for their test and if they were clean the state would send them a check. Just give the person the paper work and send them to a lab. My question in this is how often will they be tested? Tested just one time or each year?
If you have to be drug tested to earn money, why should you not be drug tested to get money? Anyone who has been around someone on drugs knows that drug use impedes the desire to WANT to work. If you want to sit home and do drugs, that’s on you. If you want a piece of my hard earned money be drug tested like i was!
I am against the war on drugs and I still think this is a good idea. People on welfare should be cigarette, lottery, and alcohol tested if it was up to me. Administering birth control would also be a great help. You should have to earn money in order to support your own vices, not spend tax payers’.
So people who work are subject to random drug testing….why shouldn’t the people on Welfare have the same applied to them? They are “special” because they don’t work?
Whats the harm testing urine as long as charges are not filed against these folks. If someone needs help we should provide it in their time of need, but if they want to sit at home and enjoy recreational drugs when those of us who work can’t, something has to give.