Drug Testing for Welfare Recipients Struck Down
Yes, it's another post for you Fourth Amendment junkies, er, enthusiasts. The excellent comments to my post yesterday have made me question whether the Fourth Amendment forbids police from placing a GPS device on one's car (although, like Whiskey Sam, I find Cato's brief on the case to be pretty persuasive).
Today's topic: mandatory drug testing for welfare recipients -- there's a law in Florida that requires it. But Judge Mary Scriven (a GWB-appointee) has just blocked the law as a possible Fourth Amendment violation. I'm not persuaded that there is any constitutional violation at all. I would argue that when government is doling out benefits, it can put conditions on those benefits, like being drug free. Indeed, the Washington Legal Foundation made that very argument in a similar case in Michigan. Alas, WLF narrowly lost the case before a closely divided 6th Circuit.
I hope that SCOTUS will, eventually, clarify that government doesn't "search" you when they put conditions on benefits. Similarly, the government doesn't "censor" you when they fail to subsidize your performance art (this was the argument that Karen Finley made against the NEA years ago). There are political and cultural implications. Liberals want it both ways -- government largesse and no strings attached. The only hope of turning people against the Nanny State is making them realize that He Who Pays the Piper Calls the Tune.
- Comment (29)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (3)
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
Comments:
Dec '10
Re: Drug Testing for Welfare Recipients Struck Down
I am in agreement with you here. If the government can't put conditions on benefits then don't all those strings they have attached elsewhere come undone? I am thinking for example of the Federal law that makes it illegal for a University that accepts Federal funding to release report cards to parent. If this ruling stands then wouldn't that law be struck down as a First Amendment violation?
Jul '11
Re: Drug Testing for Welfare Recipients Struck Down
So if it is illegal for the government to do drug testing for welfare recipients would not the same logic hold for alcohol or drug testing for individuals driving a car? If not then what exactly would the difference be?
Aug '10
Re: Drug Testing for Welfare Recipients Struck Down
The Fourth Amendment guarantees that citizens are free from "unreasonable" search and seizure, and that warrants can only be granted with "probable cause".
I am not convinced that the simple act of requesting/receiving financial aid from the government qualifies as probable cause.
If drug testing for welfare recipients is constitutional, then it follows that searching the homes of welfare recipients is also constitutional.
I agree that the government can put conditions on welfare, including the condition that recipients remain drug-free. However, I think the government needs to have some evidence that the recipient ISN'T drug-free before it can get a warrant for drug testing.
Edited on October 25, 2011 at 7:15pmAug '10
Re: Drug Testing for Welfare Recipients Struck Down
I think the difference is that the police officer that administers the breathalyzer test must have probable cause to administer the test, such as smelling alcohol on the suspect's breath, noticing slurred speech, or witnessing erratic driving.
Aug '10
Re: Drug Testing for Welfare Recipients Struck Down
Wait a second, it's unconstitutional for government aid to come with a catch for drug testing... but it's OK for federal dollars to come with a catch requiring, say, a child-abuse prevention program to be run in order to get education funding? Or to require anti-ageism programs if you get HHS funding, or to require Title IX women's sports programs if your organization takes federal funding? Or tying highway funding to "voluntary" enacting of safety laws?
I almost hope the SC does uphold this notion. Maybe it will become a wedge precedent used to roll back the abuses of federalism... starting with Obamacare.
Aug '10
Re: Drug Testing for Welfare Recipients Struck Down
If I read the news article correctly, the decision didn't say that it's unconstitutional for government aid to come with a catch that recipients remain drug-free, only that it's unconstitutional for the government to require drug testing for ALL welfare recipients.
Re: Drug Testing for Welfare Recipients Struck Down
Misthiocracy: The Fourth Amendment guarantees that citizens are free from "unreasonable" search and seizure, and that warrants can only be granted with "probable cause".
I am not convinced that the simple act of requesting/receiving financial aid from the government qualifies as probable cause.
The question is whether the probable cause analysis applies here. I don't think it does because applying for benefits is a voluntary act, and the government can put conditions on voluntary benefits -- including waiver of constitutional rights. As Blue Ant points out, receipt of education funding requires institutions to waive speech rights. Likewise, candidates who accept federal campaign funding must agree to limit the amount of their speech. Why can't the state say that if you want to collect benefits, you must waive your objection to drug testing?
Jun '10
Re: Drug Testing for Welfare Recipients Struck Down
No way I would pass a drug test. I take a fistful of meds every day which, combined would almost surely set off alarms on the generic, cheap, not very specific tests administered by the lowest bidder for a government run program. So the assistance stops. I could starve to death before I get it straightened out.
Apr '11
Re: Drug Testing for Welfare Recipients Struck Down
Adam Freedman:
I hope that SCOTUS will, eventually, clarify that government doesn't "search" you when they put conditions on benefits.
Unless that condition is submitting to a search, especially a search that can land you in jail on charges unrelated to receiving welfare.
I'm not averse to drug-testing of welfare applicants. The state no less than an individual--such as a man paying child support--has a reasonable interest in knowing that the money it is compelled to provide is going for the intended purpose.
Saying there should first be some probable cause sounds good, but 1) it means keeping the whole population under surveillance, and 2) if there is probable cause, you are already out of the welfare system and into the criminal justice system.
It may be a condition, but let's not say it isn't a search. What it isn't is a compelled search, such as is produced by a warrant. I should think a way to do it is to require proof you are drug free. You take the test. If you don't want the results submitted to the welfare agency, that's the end of it.
Aug '10
Re: Drug Testing for Welfare Recipients Struck Down
Have those two examples been tested in court?
Could the government require that welfare recipients waive any constitutional right in order to receive financial aid?
If the government can demand that recipients waive their rights under the fourth amendment and the first amendment, how about also requiring that they waive their rights under the eighth amendment so that government officials can flog them, or under the third amendment so that the army can quarter soldiers with welfare recipients?
Edited on October 25, 2011 at 8:26pmAug '10
Re: Drug Testing for Welfare Recipients Struck Down
That sounds like a reasonable compromise.
Re: Drug Testing for Welfare Recipients Struck Down
Misthiocracy
Have those two examples been tested in court?
Yes. Grove City College v. Bell and Buckley v Valeo.
The waiver has to bear some rational relation to the benefit conferred (Dolan v. City of Tigard). I don't see a good argument for waiving 8th Amendment rights for government benefits. Nor the 3rd Amendment - but bless you for bringing up that neglected provision! There's a great Onion piece on the anti-quartering movement.
Aug '10
Re: Drug Testing for Welfare Recipients Struck Down
What is the rational relation between submitting to drug testing and receiving government benefits? I can see the relation between refraining from drug use and receiving government benefits, but I do not see how receiving government benefits is rationally related to arbitrary search and seizure.
If the state has a compelling interest in ensuring that recipients of government benefits do not commit fraud or other crimes, then it could conceivably be "rationally related" to request that they waive their 8th Amendment rights so that the government can flog them if they violate any welfare agreement they sign.
I think it could be "rationally relevant" that the government can demand that services, such as providing accommodations for soldiers, be rendered in exchange for government benefits.
Indeed, it was that very Onion article that made me think of it!
:-)
Edited on October 25, 2011 at 9:02pmAug '10
Re: Drug Testing for Welfare Recipients Struck Down
To summarize: You have convinced me that it is constitutional for a government to require that welfare recipients submit to drug testing as a condition of receiving benefits, but only if it is also constitutional for the government to require a waiver of any other constitutional right in exchange for government benefits or funding.
After all, nowhere in the constitution does it explicitly forbid voluntary waivers of constitutional rights in exchange for government benefits.
Edited on October 25, 2011 at 9:49pmMay '10
Re: Drug Testing for Welfare Recipients Struck Down
Not so fast, Adam. They don't want "no strings attached", they want only progressive, politically-correct strings attached. I see Blueant has already made this point in comment #5.
The next step, of course, is not merely placing conditions on receiving government funding, but actively harassing people for not going out of their way to be politically correct enough.
May '11
Re: Drug Testing for Welfare Recipients Struck Down
I think a better solution is to require work be done to receive government pay (aka welfare). The work should pay minimum wage and be subjected to the normal taxation process. There are thousands of miles of roads that need cleaned of litter. There are hundreds of parks that need it too.
If someone stops coming to "work" or calls out "sick", the pay stops. Come back to work and the pay starts again. There should be no minimum paycheck. Work one hour get paid for one hour. Want to leave this government "workforce"? Get a real job.
Disability? Another matter. Don't get me started.
May '11
Re: Drug Testing for Welfare Recipients Struck Down
This post points out the true evils of socialism. It's bad enough that socialism takes property from some to redistribute to others, and it's bad enough that it ruins economies and creates a sense of entitlement, etc.
But the true evil of socialism is that it erodes our rights by making otherwise sensible people want to control its recipients.
It is wrong, wrong, wrong, to search everyone who receives government entitlements because this logic will then be used to justify searching anyone for the slightest government benefit. With universal health care right around the corner, that means that we will all be subject to search regularly.
This is a very bad road to continue hurtling down, but we've been going down this road to serfdom for quite some time now, and too many people no longer see the danger because they no longer remember what freedom is.
Edited on October 25, 2011 at 10:04pmMar '11
Re: Drug Testing for Welfare Recipients Struck Down
I don't believe that there is a violation of Constitutional Rights in this issue. It is not mandatory that a person ask for welfare. In the Obamacare debate it came out that there were a large number of people who qualified for Medicaid but never applied.
I would pass a drug test so I simply don't care if that was a requirement to feed my family. I have had to pass a drug test for a job. Welfare beneficiaries should pass a drug test for their "paycheck"
Re: Drug Testing for Welfare Recipients Struck Down
Mark Wilson
The next step, of course, is not merely placing conditions on receiving government funding, but actively harassing people for not going out of their way to be politically correct enough. · Oct 25 at 12:37pm
Yikes! No wonder Mr. Delingpole prefers things on this side of the Atlantic.
May '11
Re: Drug Testing for Welfare Recipients Struck Down
Jager, but what other test might they come up with? Sure, you'd pass a drug test, but when they make healthcare dependent on a drug search, you'll suffer the indignity of it because you have to have their healthcare. And then they'll start searching to see if you smoke cigarettes. Do you like to drive fast cars? Have you ever speeded? Is your home up to code? Is your trash properly sorted? Have you been hoarding more than your allotted ration of gasoline (remember the 1970's?)?
The government and those wielding its power will never stop finding ways to control you by meting out services, then benefits, then requirements, and making you jump through hoops to collect. And with the looming mandatory healthcare, you will be required to jump whether you like it or not.
It won't stop at drug tests for welfare. It will keep going. Draw the line now.