Drug test for welfare recipients

[rebelcowboysnb]

I thought Congressional acts were made by the States through representatives.

I thought we would have learned our lesson about drugs with opium dens.

Constitution. Article VI, the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution, declares: "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof, and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; .

Quote: The hole point of the Constitution is define the fed an limit its power. If it was interpreted the way you are trying to make it out then all laws congress makes would be constitutional an the supreme court would not have spent all these years striking down unconstitutional laws..

Besides if all they legally had to do to ban something was have congress pass a law then why did they go threw all the trouble to have the states ratify a amendment to the Constitution when they wanted to ban booze?

 

[catlvr976]

Quote:
I have been reading this thread and wasn't going to comment, but the mood I'm in today I just felt like I had to say something.

I know this was said a while back, and is not exactly pertinent to the discussion, but you are wrong.

Birth control is most definitely a health issue for women as far as something like the pill is concerned. Some women need it because of cysts, some for heavy menstrual flow, some to regulate their cycles, is believed to reduce the risks of some cancers, etc.

Some women should not carry a pregnancy due to other health issues that may be present.

Birth control is most definitely an issue for women.

I bet you feel viagra and it's counterparts should be covered, though.

I am under the assumption you are a man. If I am correct, then perhaps you ought to remain silent on a woman's health issues especially when it looks to me like you have a limited knowledge of what you are talking about. When men can carry a baby, then you can say something about contraception and health issues.

Oh, and one other thing, I believe you mentioned about women and "sperm donors" and how they can't keep a "decent man." It appears to me that you really have some issues with women, don't you? Did it ever occur to you that there are men out there that are less than decent, who think nothing of leaving their women and children behind?

But, I suppose that's somehow a woman's fault, too.

I receive social security survivor's benefits for myself and my children. You see, my husband decided to leave us behind when he made the choice to kill himself a few years ago. I guess that was my fault because I couldn't keep a decent man. He was a hardworking man, overtime, etc. Perhaps if his greedy employer decided to supply better healthcare he could've had the mental healthcare he obviously so desperately needed he might still be around. But you see, they "couldn't afford" it. I saw the way the owners live. I guess as long as the rich continue to be able to live in multiple homes, have nice fancy cars, vacations, etc at the expense of their employees who MAKE them their money, all is ok. Let's just continue to villify the poor.

My children receive CHIP and WIC, some would consider that a form of welfare.

I would like to go back to work as an RN, but to do so right now would be futile. Yes, even as an RN. It would actually COST me money to work. I would be paying for child care, and then would need to pay for their insurance. I can only imagine the difficulties that are faced by other single moms out there that are not as fortunate as I am to have an education. Someday when my oldest can help out with watching her siblings, I will go back to work.

I am not on drugs. I resent the fact that there are so many people who feel that welfare recipients are nothing but lazy, drug addicted slobs.

Perhaps we ought to drug test some of our politicians. Wonder how that would go over?

I'm sick of hearing people complain about their tax dollars going to help the less fortunate. Why don't people ever complain about their precious tax dollars funding things like corporate welfare, or endless wars or politicians salaries?

 

[airen]

Oh goodness, Catlvr, I'm so sorry. For what is worth, not everyone here does think down on the poorer. Shoot, some of are speaking from personal experience

Sometimes stupid inaccurate stereotypes are the most offending, and to wrongly lumped in to one hurts.

 

[cupman]

Strong message, catlvr976. Don't let him bother you. To assume he is a man is wrong, a man can admit they are wrong sometimes. He does like to make bigoted statements but then defend them with "I'm a realist!" I am certain that most people, even those who agree with him politically, are disgusted by his immature behavior. Don't let him discourage you, he's just a bitter old man.

 

[Ridgerunner]

The hole point of the Constitution is define the fed an limit its power. If it was interpreted the way you are trying to make it out then all laws congress makes would be constitutional an the supreme court would not have spent all these years striking down unconstitutional laws..

Besides if all they legally had to do to ban something was have congress pass a law then why did they go threw all the trouble to have the states ratify a amendment to the Constitution when they wanted to ban booze?

 

I mostly agree with this. Not only did the Constitution limit the power of the Federal government, it gave the Federal government certain powers.

I find the Constitution a remarkable document. Our Founding Fathers tried a pure States Rights form of government, the Articles of Confederation. It took them a remarkably short time to realize and agree that a pure States Rights form of government was hopeless. It simple did not work. So they wrote the Constitution to give the Federal government a lot more power. To me, how quickly the Constitution was ratified shows how thoroughly the Articles of Confederation, a strong States Rights government, failed.

But the Constitution does not give the Federal government unlimited powers. It gave certain powers to the Federal government and gave all others to the individual States. The Constitution is the supreme law of the land, not the laws Congress passes and the President signs. The Constitution set up the Judicial branch to interpret the laws passed by the Legislative branch and agreed to by the Executive branch and to make sure they conform to the requirements of the Constitution. A balance of powers.

The members of the Supreme Court, nominated by the President and confirmed by the Senate, are supposed to determine whether the laws passed conform to the Constitution, but the Justices are human beings. There personal philosophies and person opinions influence how they interpret some of those articles in the Constitution. That’s why a unanimous decision from the Supreme Court is fairly rare. They should all be highly trained in Law and know the fine points. I’ll admit I don’t see where they get some of their interpretations, but I’m not trained in Law.

In general, what happens in a State is not the Federal governments business unless the Constitution gives authority (as determined by the Supreme Court) to the Federal Government. One exception seems to be that if Federal tax money is taken inside a state, then the Federal government has an interest in how it is spent. An example is where some colleges and universities accept Federal money and get sued because of Federal discrimination laws. If they don’t take Federal money, then that is a State issue, not Federal.

That’s why the Federal Government needed a Constitutional Amendment for Prohibition. The Federal government was not granted power to control alcohol within the boundaries of the individual States in the original Constitution, though they can control alcohol when it crosses State lines. They had to have a Constitutional Amendment to give them that control and to ban it. Then it took another Constitutional Amendment to repeal Prohibition.

The Founding fathers made it very difficult to amend the Constitution. An amendment can have far reaching effects and should not be passed on a whim.

I don’t know what Constitutional Authority the Federal government is using to go after marijuana in California. I don’t use illegal drugs and don’t go out of my way to keep up with all those details. I believe if they are exceeding their Constitutional authority, the Supreme Court will eventually take care of that. But for that to happen, someone has to present to the Supreme Court a legal argument showing what Constitutional provisions are being violated and the Federal government then has to show what Constitutional articles give it the authority to do what it is doing.

 

[airen]

Wow. Ridgerunner, you're my new hero.

 

[rebelcowboysnb]

I don’t know what Constitutional Authority the Federal government is using to go after marijuana in California. I don’t use illegal drugs and don’t go out of my way to keep up with all those details. I believe if they are exceeding their Constitutional authority, the Supreme Court will eventually take care of that. But for that to happen, someone has to present to the Supreme Court a legal argument showing what Constitutional provisions are being violated and the Federal government then has to show what Constitutional articles give it the authority to do what it is doing.

There actually claiming that power threw the interstate commerce rules. Claiming that they have the power to regulate anything in any state that could posably someday cross a state line...

 

[Enchanted Sunrise Farms]

Quote:

Catlvr976, i agree with you completely. i had to go back and look and it was indeed a man who made that statement, of course. i know it sways off topic, but i'm so angry with men thinking they have any right to decide what a woman does with her body. Those health care decisions should be between her and the doctor she trusts.

On the welfare issue, i've seen both sides, and been on one side myself, although i didn't know it at the time. My father suffered a massive stroke when i was 11. His employer fired him, as they thought his erratic behavior before the stroke was due to incompetence. My mother had to fight to get his pension and Social Security disability. But there was a time period we had no money, and my mother had to get assistance. i remember being in the grocery store and feeling the embarrassment as my mother pulled out those food stamps to pay for the groceries. i actually didn't understand it all at the time, but that feeling of embarrassment overwhelmed me.

Later in life, one of my nieces got involved with a young man. He was into drugs and in a gang, and his whole family lived on welfare. She thought that was cool that they didn't have to work and was hoping to opt into that whole scene. Luckily, the boyfriend got bored and dropped her.

More recently, my sister became disabled with a chronic health condition. We helped as much as possible, but she went onto welfare and food stamps for a few months until her disability pension was approved. She also went to food banks, and that helped a lot.

Anyhow, i don't know what the answer is. Just felt compelled to chime in on your post, Catlvr976. i'm sorry for the difficulties you have faced and hope that things improve for you and your family in the future.

 

[Ridgerunner]

There actually claiming that power threw the interstate commerce rules. Claiming that they have the power to regulate anything in any state that could posably someday cross a state line...

I'm not a lawyer but that seems like a huge stretch to me. If they make the argument that it crossed state or international borders to get there, maybe, but not presupposing a future crime. Has the Supreme Court weighed in on it yet?

 

[airen]

It's a shoot first, ask questions later. They will do it until someone challenges it... and keep doing it unitl the Supreme Court tells them otherwise.

I find it hilarious it's suddenly a priority about the time election campaigns are heating up