Is Drug Testing Welfare Applicants Unconstitutional?

[Thomas Rodriguez-Swift]

Its alright. I often miss my own points. I guess i dont have one of my own, but the video and that report make it for me. As far as the rest of it goes I was just stating my 1/2 cent on redistribution of wealth.

[AJ Camacho]

You buy the groceries with the food stamps. Sell the groceries at a cheaper price to your friends with a job. Then use the money to buy drugs. Either that or the bodega that sells the drugs charges you for food and gives you drugs. Seen it happen a million times.

Right, but how people manage their resources is their own agenda. The point here is that tax payer money is literally not going to drug sales. Poor people also trade sexual favors for drugs and the food that you pay for, feeds them allowing them to perform said sexual favors. Should we force poor people to become infertile if they fail a drug test? On the up side, now with this new law, poor people can skip the middle man and just use sexual favors to get food.

The general sentiment is that if somebody is so poor that they need food stamps, then they shouldn't be buying drugs. But what else are they supposed to use their money for? They aren't going to buy food with it, they already have food stamps. Housing is paid for or subsidized and they're usually just working under the table to cover everything else not covered by the government. All I see this doing is boosting liquor sales.

[bobby rivers]

All I see this doing is boosting liquor sales.

^yup.

[Nathan K.]

Federal Welfare is unequivocally unconstitutional.

The Constitution is a relatively short yet clearly written document that is not open to interpretation. Its purpose is to constrict the power of federal government by clearly defining specific enumerated powers of governance. All powers assumed by the federal government which are not explicitly articulated within the document are consequently rendered unconstitutional by default.

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

Even though it is understood, James Madison introduced the 10th Amendment, in an exercise of great redundancy, to cement the fact that only states and individuals have the right to implement powers not limited by the Constitution. It reads:

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

Unlike most countries, ours is not a sovereign state. It is a Constitutional Republic comprised of fifty individual, sovereign states as well as numerous international territories. Even though this country consisted of merely thirteen states at its conception, our Founders knew that a geographical area of such magnitude could not be successfully governed under one, single order of law. That is why they branded us The United States of America and designed a Constitution that confines the threat of dictatorial or oligarchical rule and encourages individual freedom. The system, as it was intended, was a beautiful and revolutionary attempt to form a country into a loosely bound collection of political petri dishes. The key to all knowledge is trial & error. States with bad laws and policies would be forced to compete with states who enact good laws and policies. The bad states would ultimately fail under such scrutinous conditions, and states with positive legislative practices would lead through the example of success.

It is not the duty of the federal government to create law. In fact, the only federal crimes supported by the Constitution are treason, piracy, and counterfeiting. All other federal crimes (here is a list: http://www.rasmussenlaw.com/info/content/view/12/29/ ) are in effect, unconstitutional. Similarly, all federal statutes which directly contradict the Constitution are unconstitutional as well and should be considered void. This fact is supported by the following statement:

"No legislative act … contrary to the Constitution can be valid. To deny this would be to affirm that the deputy is greater than his principal; that the servant is above his master; that the representatives of the people are superior to the people themselves; that men acting by virtue of powers may do not only what their powers do not authorize, but what they forbid." - Alexander Hamilton, Federalist 78

Sadly, our present government disregards the Constitution completely, and the losing party is our freedom. States have been stripped of any true sovereignty or power. Political corruption is fiercely protected. New bills and regulations are constantly rushed into place to increase the size of government and decrease the value of people.

Why? Because the only authority the government has is the people. A government will not regulate itself. It will only become ever more powerful if not contained by a well-informed and active citizenry. Our specific duties as American citizens are laid bare in the second paragraph of the Declaration of Independence:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."

We have been brainwashed into believing that we only exist because our government allows us to. I encourage anyone still reading to clear your mind of everything you think you know. Most of it is lie, myth, and propaganda. Only through recognizing that you know nothing do you begin to walk the path of true wisdom.

One way you can fight back: JURY NULLIFICATION

Please do your own research on this (as well as everything I've said), for it is one of the most important powers you have to protect yourself and others. They don't want you to know about it for a reason.

[Nathan K.]

Now, beyond the unconstitutionality of federal welfare...

Why it is wrong!

1. If you support it, you support stealing.

Redistribution of wealth is thievery, pure and simple. The government, like the Mafia, steals money from one person under threat of violence, death, and imprisonment, and redistributes it to another. It is not charity. You cannot force kindness.

2. Welfare comes from the collection of taxes.

Federal income taxes are unconstitutional. They were created in 1913 (the same year the Federal Reserve Act was passed, assuring our economic doom) with the introduction of the 16th Amendment which states:

"The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration."

Basically, what it says in essence is this: "Your Constitution is meaningless. Accept your new masters." As I pointed out in my last post, any act or law that contradicts the Constitution is to be considered null and void by virtue of the Constitution's rules itself.

When government claims the fruits of your labor it is called Socialism. When you claim the fruits of your labor, it is called America, because we were the first to try it out.

3. Welfare creates dependency.

America was founded under the concept of individual liberty. Everyone is responsible for themselves and their families. No one else. When you rely on the government for your subsistence, you become dependent on it. When survival is your own responsibility, your prerogatives are greatly adjusted. Many people think that government welfare allows people to "get back on their feet", but for most it only serves as an excuse to stay sitting down. Children raised on welfare grow up in an environment that tells them they are owed something rather than what they receive must be earned. It is a system that kills ambition and work ethic while promoting the acceptance of poverty.

The worst part about dependency is that it opens the doors to manipulation and domination. Once you are dependent on an entity, you must accept its dogma or perish. This fiasco in Florida serves as a great example. "We don't want you to do drugs. If you do, you'll lose your welfare." How far off is "We don't want you to have more than one child. If you do, you'll lose your welfare."? Or "We want to place a security camera in your home. If you don't let us, you'll lose your welfare."?

4. Welfare harms true charity.

A lot of people think that if federal entitlement programs were abolished, people would be dying in the streets. Even if this happened, it would be due to my previous point: dependency. However, the idea is ludicrous. People are more giving than you think. Thousands upon thousands of private charities exist, and destroying government welfare would only cause them to flourish. Charities, while non-profit, are still competitive. When a government tries to take over the role of a charity, it undercuts the true charities because they cannot compete with something that acquires its funds through robbery. Non-profits whose goal is to help people to improve their own lives rather than just handing out cash are stifled. Government run health insurance has put numerous charity hospitals out of business.

Charity should not be mandatory. The wise mind knows that it should be private and voluntary. If the government wasn't jacking half of our salaries, Americans would have a lot more to give, and they would. Keeping welfare entirely private would strengthen communities and cause people to reassess their bonds with the rest of humanity. The federal system only distances us from the suffering of others. It is truly evil.

[Joe Durham]

Now, beyond the unconstitutionality of federal welfare...

Why it is wrong!

1. If you support it, you support stealing.


Redistribution of wealth is thievery, pure and simple. The government, like the Mafia, steals money from one person under threat of violence, death, and imprisonment, and redistributes it to another. It is not charity. You cannot force kindness.

2. Welfare comes from the collection of taxes.

Federal income taxes are unconstitutional. They were created in 1913 (the same year the Federal Reserve Act was passed, assuring our economic doom) with the introduction of the 16th Amendment which states:

"The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration."

Basically, what it says in essence is this: "Your Constitution is meaningless. Accept your new masters." As I pointed out in my last post, any act or law that contradicts the Constitution is to be considered null and void by virtue of the Constitution's rules itself.

When government claims the fruits of your labor it is called Socialism. When you claim the fruits of your labor, it is called America, because we were the first to try it out.

3. Welfare creates dependency.

America was founded under the concept of individual liberty. Everyone is responsible for themselves and their families. No one else. When you rely on the government for your subsistence, you become dependent on it. When survival is your own responsibility, your prerogatives are greatly adjusted. Many people think that government welfare allows people to "get back on their feet", but for most it only serves as an excuse to stay sitting down. Children raised on welfare grow up in an environment that tells them they are owed something rather than what they receive must be earned. It is a system that kills ambition and work ethic while promoting the acceptance of poverty.

The worst part about dependency is that it opens the doors to manipulation and domination. Once you are dependent on an entity, you must accept its dogma or perish. This fiasco in Florida serves as a great example. "We don't want you to do drugs. If you do, you'll lose your welfare." How far off is "We don't want you to have more than one child. If you do, you'll lose your welfare."? Or "We want to place a security camera in your home. If you don't let us, you'll lose your welfare."?

4. Welfare harms true charity.

A lot of people think that if federal entitlement programs were abolished, people would be dying in the streets. Even if this happened, it would be due to my previous point: dependency. However, the idea is ludicrous. People are more giving than you think. Thousands upon thousands of private charities exist, and destroying government welfare would only cause them to flourish. Charities, while non-profit, are still competitive. When a government tries to take over the role of a charity, it undercuts the true charities because they cannot compete with something that acquires its funds through robbery. Non-profits whose goal is to help people to improve their own lives rather than just handing out cash are stifled. Government run health insurance has put numerous charity hospitals out of business.

Charity should not be mandatory. The wise mind knows that it should be private and voluntary. If the government wasn't jacking half of our salaries, Americans would have a lot more to give, and they would. Keeping welfare entirely private would strengthen communities and cause people to reassess their bonds with the rest of humanity. The federal system only distances us from the suffering of others. It is truly evil.

+1 Good post!

[snoogens44]

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

[AJ Camacho]

Federal Welfare is unequivocally unconstitutional.

Um, no.

I recommend starting with the definition for the word "enumerate". It's a highly debatable topic with valid points on either side. Your condescending tone and dismissive nature of the counter argument does nothing to functionally dismantle the logistical reasons for welfare. What if the founding fathers didn't want welfare? Who cares... they could be wrong. Calling people thieves for potentially holding a counter position is a silly rhetorical device that carries no logical merit.

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

[Frank R.]

Um, no.

I recommend starting with the definition for the word "enumerate". It's a highly debatable topic with valid points on either side. Your condescending tone and dismissive nature of the counter argument does nothing to functionally dismantle the logistical reasons for welfare. What if the founding fathers didn't want welfare? Who cares... they could be wrong. Calling people thieves for potentially holding a counter position is a silly rhetorical device that carries no logical merit.

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

+1

I don't support it or am against it either. I just know it's there and if people are going to be using it for what it's intended then they should be drug tested. That's the point of this thread I think...

[AJ Camacho]

+1

I don't support it or am against it either. I just know it's there and if people are going to be using it for what it's intended then they should be drug tested. That's the point of this thread I think...

Definitely. It's the people's money and I respect that they get what they vote for. I totally back that decision. I just question whether or not it will create the desired result. Poverty is an endemic problem that is caused by how people view money, saving, and the world in general. You can't just force people to spend their money in a wiser manner.