Drug test for welfare recipients

If you put the C.D.C. under defense why is it not run by the army ?


Under the Constitution, the Legislative Branch makes the laws, the Judicial Branch interprets the law, and the Executive Branch enforces the law. The President is Commander in Chief to keep the military under civilian control.

There are several departments under the President, who happens to be Commander in Chief, that are not on the Defense side. So ther CDC can be under the President without being run by the Army. The CDC is under the Department of Health and Human Services.
 
Quote:
The DEA is like the CDC in that sense but the DEA is constitutional because of the interstate commerce part of the Constitution. But my opinion, they are over stepping when they raid pot growers in pot friendly states or any other place where interstate commerce is not happening. But apparently the SCOTUS does not see it that way... We need an amendment to let "the people" have a way to replace SCOTUS members....
 
It would save a lot of lives. They sort of do that already. If you are epileptic you cannot drive, that alters your mind, they do not let you drive on opiates when you leave the hospital.

Driving is a privilege. I could argue in court that doing so would promote the general welfare seeing as there is no real way to measure the THC level in the field for a timely measurement.

Then we should do the same for alcohol.
 
RNs make over $40hr in my state.  Oh and I believe the majority of jobs nowadays are requiring drug test. You have to pass a drug test to pay taxes to support welfare its only fair to pass a drug test to receive welfare imo.


If you ever turn that in to a magnetic car decal, I would be the first to buy one. Powerful words. I agree 100%. :thumbsup
 
If you ever turn that in to a magnetic car decal, I would be the first to buy one. Powerful words. I agree 100%.
thumbsup.gif

me too!
 
The DEA is like the CDC in that sense but the DEA is constitutional because of the interstate commerce part of the Constitution. But my opinion, they are over stepping when they raid pot growers in pot friendly states or any other place where interstate commerce is not happening. But apparently the SCOTUS does not see it that way... We need an amendment to let "the people" have a way to replace SCOTUS members....

So if one or more judges on the court doesn't interpret the constitution as you do then they have to go ? Then you will hunt for one that sees things as you do ?
 

New posts New threads Active threads

Back
Top Bottom