R K
Guest
I sense Hypocrisy coming. Go one step further. Classify alcohol as a drug. Since most suggesting this also drink.
ACLU Challenges Florida’s Mandatory Drug Tests For Housing
- Thread starter IceHogsFan
- Start date
I sense Hypocrisy coming. Go one step further. Classify alcohol as a drug. Since most suggesting this also drink.
R K
Guest
Exactly. I couldn't agree more. It amazes me how many people whine, ***** and moan about the Constitution, and then are so willing to let people trample all over it on a whim.
R K
Guest
R K
Guest
Lake Zurich is proposing drug testing at the HS level. Are you kidding me? Since when does the HS play parent? What right do they have playing parent? They are there to fucking TEACH!
They want to do it because two other HS's in the area do so. I wrote an extensive letter stating if one thing was done to my student, Violating ANY of his Constitutional Rights, without my prior knowledge that the school, school board, and district should expect immediate legal action from me seeking monitary judgement as penalty.
This Country is so fucked it's beyond comical. No wonder we can't pull our head out of our ass long enough to realize the ignorant decisions we make, and the harm it does to the foundation.
They want to do it because two other HS's in the area do so. I wrote an extensive letter stating if one thing was done to my student, Violating ANY of his Constitutional Rights, without my prior knowledge that the school, school board, and district should expect immediate legal action from me seeking monitary judgement as penalty.
This Country is so fucked it's beyond comical. No wonder we can't pull our head out of our ass long enough to realize the ignorant decisions we make, and the harm it does to the foundation.
- Joined:
- May 15, 2010
- Posts:
- 5,024
- Liked Posts:
- 0
So, there is absolutely nothing that can be done if we are going to provide taxpayer funded housing in regards to illegal narcotics?
I do not see the distinction between the U.S. government saying to its military members that they are not allowed to use illegal narcotics and will be randomly selected for drug screenings and the issue we are discussing.
- Joined:
- May 15, 2010
- Posts:
- 5,024
- Liked Posts:
- 0
As we have discussed previously on here, my daughter's private high school does random drug screenings for all its students, not just athletes. When you send your child there you sign a document stating such. I enjoy that and will tell you that it is one of the many things I appreciate about private schooling. Second week of freshman year she was chosen to have a screening done.
R K
Guest
I don't know what you do Chris. You certainly don't advocate blowing the Constitution out of the water. That's ignorant and against the fundamental rights granted to all of us. Not all of those people are participating in the use of "illegal narcotics".
So the ones that aren't you arbitrarily say **** you?
So the ones that aren't you arbitrarily say **** you?
R K
Guest
As a specialist in Costitutional Law I'd chose another school. By sending your daughter to "private school" you give up those rights. If that's what you chose, it's your choice. I wouldn't. Nor do I think "private school" is any better than some of our Public Schools.
I'd also like to know they were discussing the change of what an illegal Narcotic is. Your daughter could go out and get completely shit faced drunk and guess what, that test would mean shit. She wouldn't because you and your wife are GOOD parents, just as she wouldn't do drugs for the same reason.
R K
Guest
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
No where in there do I see, "Unless" society deems the right to violate.
As for the framers you do realize many of them were also drunks, pot smokers, womenizers?
No where in there do I see, "Unless" society deems the right to violate.
As for the framers you do realize many of them were also drunks, pot smokers, womenizers?
- Joined:
- May 15, 2010
- Posts:
- 5,024
- Liked Posts:
- 0
Again, so how does that differentiate from a military member being tested?
I see it just like your opinion on private vs. public schooling. I do not see a difference. If a U.S. citizen wants to receive federal and state funded benefits provided by the tax payers then they should be required to agree to certain limitations. You call it a right that they not be "searched" for drugs whereas I see at as a stipulation of asking for those benefits. You don't want to be screened then you need not apply. That is your right to say no and by doing so you deny yourself said benefit.
R K
Guest
That's a violation as well. I'm also not sure why you bring up the Military. Just as another example of where we trample on Constitutional Rights? We do it all the time Chris. It's nothing new. You are advocating for it. Good job.
You and I have very fundamental differences no doubt about it.
Again many of the founding fathers were alcoholics, drug users, and womenizers. They wrote it that way for a reason.
And like already mentioned where do you stop. Should they drug test you for fire arm ownership? Should they drug test you for a drivers license? Should they drug test you for having children?
Give me a fucking break. Everything is a choice. The Constitution is a living set of RIGHTS, that stops violations of those choices.
You and I have very fundamental differences no doubt about it.
Again many of the founding fathers were alcoholics, drug users, and womenizers. They wrote it that way for a reason.
And like already mentioned where do you stop. Should they drug test you for fire arm ownership? Should they drug test you for a drivers license? Should they drug test you for having children?
Give me a fucking break. Everything is a choice. The Constitution is a living set of RIGHTS, that stops violations of those choices.
- Joined:
- Oct 25, 2010
- Posts:
- 1,153
- Liked Posts:
- 0
- Location:
- Demolished, No Longer Standing
R K
Guest
Still violates the 4th Amendment either way. Your PERSON includes your URINE, HAIR...ANYTHING contained in your body!
- Joined:
- Dec 10, 2014
- Posts:
- 7,876
- Liked Posts:
- 1,107
- Location:
- Anacortes, WA via Glenview, IL
Folks don't realize - or give it much thought - but if you're willing suppres the constitutional rights of others because they belong to a certain "group", your group may be next. For example, I'm sure every poster here that favors a robust 2nd amendment doesn't want to be drug tested when they purchase firearms or have to submit medical records because some deranged people have obtained arms before and killed someone.
R K
Guest
No, and even worse they want to arbitrarily chose what's a violation and whats not. By using examples of how it's already being violated. Ok, so we know it's being voilated so let's continue in further trampling of it?
R K
Guest
He knows the distinction. It's just a convenient example. Some chose convenience, which in itself is hypocritical. That itself does not make a distinction as it's still ANOTHER violation of the 4th Amendment. Whether it's "accepted" or not by most of society.
Where the military and or occupations that put risks to other citizens lives, then it might be a valid stretch to violate ones rights.
Getting public assistance is not risking shit.
- Joined:
- Dec 10, 2014
- Posts:
- 7,876
- Liked Posts:
- 1,107
- Location:
- Anacortes, WA via Glenview, IL
Not necessarily. A conservative strict constructualist should, without probable cause, find the drug testing violates a person's right to be secure from an unreasonable governmental search of their person.