Is Drug Testing Welfare Applicants Unconstitutional?

Quote:

---

durham and kelso... spoken like true indoctrinated americans. understandable though.. it seems logical given everything we are brought up to believe.
heres an enlightened perspective on welfare : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w7JXfwUtz0w

---

Americans aren't taught anything other than techniques for the avoidance of thought.

I'm a little confused about why you posted a video of Chomsky discoursing on corporate welfare. We are discussing social welfare, a different issue entirely.


To AJ,

Quote:

---

Um, no.

I recommend starting with the definition for the word "enumerate". It's a highly debatable topic with valid points on either side.

---

e·nu·mer·ate Verb/iˈn(y)o͞oməˌrāt/
1. Mention (a number of things) one by one.
2. Establish the number of.

--I'm a little confused by the connection you're trying to make. Please elaborate.

Quote:

---

Your condescending tone and dismissive nature of the counter argument does nothing to functionally dismantle the logistical reasons for welfare.

---

The reason for welfare is to secure and protect the power of the government by handing out paltry, hollow bribes to encourage obedience among the ranks of those victimized by corrupt political agendas.

However, there is no societally beneficent or constitutionally legal reason for welfare. Arguments to the contrary can only be attributed to ideological obfuscation or moral and political ineptitude.

Quote:

---

What if the founding fathers didn't want welfare? Who cares... they could be wrong.

---

It doesn't matter if someone believes they were wrong. They created a document that every man and woman who takes public office in this country must swear to uphold. It goes beyond personal belief. It is the supreme law of this land.

Quote:

---

Calling people thieves for potentially holding a counter position is a silly rhetorical device that carries no logical merit.

---

I didn't call anyone a thief for disagreeing with me. I said that to support welfare is to support stealing. When you take something from an individual against their will, it is stealing. I'm not playing word games. The concept is quite concrete. Even if stealing is considered legal as with today's tax code, the truth cannot be proven false without ceasing to be itself.

Quote:

---

I don't even support welfare but I can see how logically flawed your argument is.

---

And yet you've failed to explain or refute my supposed fallacies.

I guess it's logical.

kelso:
you cant talk about welfare without addressing the largest recipients of it: corporations. the video highlights this and the ridiculousness of attacking the smallest percentage of recipients: the poor.

I'm with durham and kelso on this one.

Our government has gotten way out of control.

"People might not get all they work for in this world, but they must certainly work for all they get."- Fredrick Douglas
If you dont know who Fredrick Douglas is, look him up, he was a slave.

welfare itself is unconstitutional. Nowhere in the constitution does it state that money from a citizen can be, against said persons will, forcibly allocated to another citizen or entity.

so to try to invoke the constitution in any way to protect those who are on welfare, is backward thinking at best.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nathan Kelso

To AJ,



e·nu·mer·ate Verb/iˈn(y)o͞oməˌrāt/
1. Mention (a number of things) one by one.
2. Establish the number of.

--I'm a little confused by the connection you're trying to make. Please elaborate.

---

Back to the original quote, "Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated." - Thomas Jefferson, 1798

Then go to

Article I, section 8 of the U.S. Constitution

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imports and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States; [Altered by Amendment XVI "Income tax".]

Then it goes on to list specific enumerations. The interpretation of the general welfare clause is a highly debatable topic that is not clear cut or dry. I did not attack your points because I don't completely disagree with you, but you are attempting to frame this debate in a simple black and white manner rather than trying to understand why the laws are the way they are or the history behind them.

I'm all for drug testing welfare recipients.....as soon as we start drug testing our politicians.

amen to this one...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Scott Philips

I'm all for drug testing welfare recipients.....as soon as we start drug testing our politicians.

---

Snoogens,

Quote:

---

kelso:
you cant talk about welfare without addressing the largest recipients of it: corporations. the video highlights this and the ridiculousness of attacking the smallest percentage of recipients: the poor.

---

In rough, incomplete figures, the government spends $25 billion per year on Foreign aid, $30 billion per year on student aid, over $75 billion on corporate subsidies, over $700 billion on corporate tax breaks, over $490 billion on Social Security, $470 billion for Medicare and Medicaid, and over $500 billion per year on various social welfare programs (includes food stamps, housing assistance, unemployment, retirement and disability, etc.).

The rabbithole goes farther than any of us can possibly imagine, for the government refuses to tell us how they spend most of our money. I don't disagree that corporations benefit the most. We currently live in a state under Fascism, in which the government has merged with the corporations. The biggest corporate entities are kept in power through a system of government subsidies, bailouts, and tax breaks while corporation-paid lobbyists push the government to pass numerous regulations and tax laws that force small businesses to either become absorbed by the machine through mergers or go out of business.

However, you say that the poor are being attacked by those who focus on the elimination of social welfare. That simply isn't so. They are being attacked by the authoratative powers that be, as are all Americans outside of the exclusive richest percentage. Destroying social welfare would only free us from our modern system of serfdom and promote individual freedom, for all of us are forced into the system at some point. All forms of welfare should be abolished, for they can only be sustained through a system of bloated, unconstitutional bureacracies that rely on robbing us all blind.

AJ,

Quote:

---

Back to the original quote, "Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated." - Thomas Jefferson, 1798

Then go to

Article I, section 8 of the U.S. Constitution

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imports and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States; [Altered by Amendment XVI "Income tax".]

Then it goes on to list specific enumerations. The interpretation of the general welfare clause is a highly debatable topic that is not clear cut or dry.

---

You're confusing the meaning of "general" welfare with "social" welfare. They are two completely different things. The word "welfare" in the term "general welfare" isn't synonymous with charity as with the latter term. It simply means "well-being". Also, the "general" in "general welfare" applies to the whole of the American citizenry, excluding or pertaining to no particular groups. The Constitution was focused on protecting equality. Social welfare specifies particular groups to benefit at the expense of others which directly conflicts with the concepts of general welfare and equality. The supporters of the "living document theory" only use semantic confusion to twist the words of the constitution to justify their authoritarian goals while masking them as humanitarian outreach. So you see, the Constitution is cut and dry. And it is in black and white. The Framers purposefully avoided ambiguous language, making the Constitution easily interpretable.

Quote:

---

I did not attack your points because I don't completely disagree with you, but you are attempting to frame this debate in a simple black and white manner rather than trying to understand why the laws are the way they are or the history behind them.

---

Trust me.. I believe nothing until doing my own research. I think that is a trait that every rational mind should possess. And I'm glad to see you do the same, even if we do disagree on some issues, my friend. I can't resist a good debate.

I'll finish with a few more quotes to ponder:

"The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule." - H. L. Mencken

"Of all tyrannies a tyranny sincerely executed for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated, but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." - C. S. Lewis

Yeah, I respect your position and it definitely opened my eyes causing me to dredge up the history books to check my recollection. I do believe that most if not all of the founding father's viewed social welfare as unconstitutional, however there is an entire world of interpretive law and seasoned professionals who bounce back and forth over this specific debate. It can get complex, especially when you disregard the intentions of the founding fathers. Even this, is not cut and dry.