A cop can enter your home for ANY reason or NO reason at all in Indiana? That ain't American.Hello,

As I've said many times on these pages, if you DON'T look out for the OTHER guys rights, yours too will soon be gone... Now, I see from THIS thread, (https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/current-events/indiana-supreme-court-what-4th-amendment-576552.html) that the right wing is VERY upset because a cop can enter their house WITHOUT a warrant...

But, I wonder if they're very upset about Florida Governor Rick Scotts new law (http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2011/06/01/New-Florida-law-mandates-drug-tests/UPI-13341306933758/)that forces POOR people to undergo a search of their body fluids (drug test) before they can receive state services - a search, by the way, WITHOUT a warrant or probable cause. I'll bet not. I wonder if they make the CONNECTION between theses searches. I'll bet not.

excon

I suppose you think the general welfare clause means people have a constitutional right to cash benefits from the state without restriction or exception? If so, why the hell am I working?

I suppose you think the general welfare clause means people have a constitutional right to cash benefits from the state without restriction or exception?Hello again, Steve:

The state is allowed to pass restrictions/laws. They just can't SEARCH a citizen WITHOUT A WARRANT to see IF he's following those restrictions. It's pretty FUNDAMENTAL to the Fourth Amendment.

excon

Hello again, Steve:

More importantly, do you SEE the connection between these TWO Fourth Amendment violations? Do you SEE that your support for ONE warrantless search WEAKENS your argument against the OTHER warrantless search? Do you see, that as repugnant as it may be, you MUST support the Fourth Amendment, EVEN when you really, really WANT to see what THAT guy has in his pocket? Do you see that, THAT'S why freedom is hard?

excon

No ex, I'm sorry I don't see the comparison. I get your point, always have, but I don't see this as an infringement of privacy rights. I see no problem with a reasonable effort at ensuring my tax dollars buy food, not crack. People don't have a constitutional right to my money.

A similar law in Michigan was ruled unconstitutional in 2003.The ruling was upheld by the Appellate Court. It did not make it to SCOTUS .

I think if I was going to question the constitutionality I'd go with the 14th amendment 'equal protection clause'. I could make a better case in saying that they didn't ask TARP bankers to take drug tests before they were given my money. Why not make students pee in a cup before they are eligible for a student loan ? There are the examples of mandatory testing to qualify for state employment to go with in saying that it is just a condition for qualification to counter the argument that it's a 4th amendment violation.

I'm about to sound liberal... If I came under dire straits and had to file for welfare benefits after working a lifetime ,I would find it degrading to have to prove my worthiness by having to pee or give hair sample. If I'm denied because the supplements I take give a false positive ,what is my remedy to appeal ?
I want to see Scott take a mandatory drug test as a condition of his continued employment .

Does it matter that one of Scott's ventures is a controlling interest in Solantic Medical Centers(which he signed over to his wife while he serves as Governor ) ;which coincidentally offers drug testing as one of it's service ?

I see no problem with a reasonable effort at ensuring my tax dollars buy food, not crack. Hello again, Steve:

I too, have no problem with REASONABLE enforcement. But searching people BEFORE there's probable cause to do so, ISN'T reasonable at all.

Using your logic... I'm sure you get a tax deduction on the interest you pay for your home.. I'm a renter. I DON'T get that government HANDOUT. I think it would be REASONABLE for ME, to require drug testing of YOU, because you're spending MY tax dollars, and I want to know what you're buying. I DO have that right, doncha think?

excon

I'm about to sound liberal... Hello tom:

In spades... But, you NAILED it.

excon

Ex, my home is paid for.

ex, my home is paid for.Hello again, Steve:

I would have dropped it, but...

Let's assume your home was just your average Texas home. Let's assume that it cost you $100K. Let's say you borrowed $80K and financed it over 30 years. That means you paid about $200K in INTEREST that you were able to deduct from your taxes. That's probably around $50K - $75K in real TAX dollars that you DIDN'T pay, that I, as a renter, DID PAY.

Don't you think that gives me some RIGHTS into how you conduct your personal affairs? After all, you DID spend some of MY tax money on your lifestyle. No, not some... A LOT OF MY TAX MONEY, and I have the RIGHT to KNOW if you're WORTHY of my largess...

excon

You should have become a landlord. Then you could've had your mortgage paid for by the renter ,and also taken the deduction.

I woulda dropped it, but....

I think you need a better example. I pay my taxes, I've met the government's conditions, I'm not taking a thing from you.

I think you need a better example. I pay my taxes, I've met the government's conditions, I'm not taking a thing from you.Hello again, Steve:

Let's speak ENGLISH here... You took advantage of a deduction that I don't get. I'm not BLAMING you for it. I'm just mentioning it. But, I AM going to COUNT it. It's MONEY that went into YOUR pocket, that would have gone into MINE if I qualified... I didn't..

Therefore, you are the recipient of government LARGESS at MY expense... Given that it's MY tax money you're spending every month, that OUGHT to give me SOME influence over how you live your life, oughtn't it?

You can SPIN it any way you want, because if you didn't, you couldn't justify your position.

excon

Ex, nothing went into my pocket and I took nothing from your pocket. You're reaching here.

IF this money existed and you had qualified, it would have gone into both of our pockets. There was no government largesse (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/largess) on the rare occasion I was able to go beyond the standard deduction which you have available also. There was no gift, I didn't gain anything, I just lost less.

I suppose you think the general welfare clause means people have a constitutional right to cash benefits from the state without restriction or exception?
ex, nothing went into my pocket and I took nothing from your pocket. You're reaching hereHello again, Steve:

It's like I said, I would have dropped it...

There's only TWO ways the government GIVES money directly to taxpayers... It sends them a check, or it gives them a tax deduction/credit. No matter HOW you acquire it, the MONEY is the same. It's TAXPAYER money.

You think if you receive a check, you should be put under scrutiny. But, if you get your taxpayer money through a deduction, then it's all fine and dandy.. I'm simply pointing out to you, that it makes NO difference HOW you acquire your government largess - it's STILL government largess.

excon

Yes, most people don't look at deductions as paymments to them. Thus why a straight percentage tax where everyone pays a percent, no matter what their income

There's only TWO ways the government GIVES money directly to taxpayers... It sends them a check, or it gives them a tax deduction/credit. No matter HOW you acquire it, the MONEY is the same. It's TAXPAYER money.

Sorry, I disagree. I ACQUIRED my money by working for it, the government GAVE me nothing. They simply TOOK less
Of MY money that I EARNED. Getting to KEEP what I EARNED is NOT a HANDOUT, it is not LARGESSE, it is MINE. You think what's MINE is YOURS and you are not ENTITLED to what's MINE.

Sorry, I disagree. I ACQUIRED my money by working for it, the government GAVE me nothing. They simply TOOK lessHello again, Steve:

You have typical wrong way right wing thinking... They took less from YOU, but NOT from me. That means, assuming all else was equal, you wound up with MORE money in your pocket than I did.

Now you can SAY it's because you worked harder than me, but it's really because the government FAVORS you over me. They GAVE you something they DIDN'T give me.

Therefore, the money that YOU have that I don't, is a GIFT from the government, and I think you ought to be drug tested for taking it. Why are you more deserving of it than me? You're not. You just have more powerful friends than I do.

excon

yes, most people don't look at deductions as paymments to them. Thus why a straight percentage tax where everyone pays a percent, no matter what their income

Yup . I would sign up for that in a second. Both Steves are right. The truth is that a deduction is not a giveaway like welfare . The recipents of welfare ,not contributing to the Federal coffers, fall under the social safety net that tax payers support.

Deductions are a result of social or behavioral command and control . The government likes when people buy homes so they incentivize with breaks. People complain when the government does it for businesses . Not so much when they benefit.

The thing is that the housing market has been permanently warped because of government incentives .Working the system created the crazy bubble that the market has yet to come out of.

Fr . I'm in full agreement with the flat tax concept. Make all the IRS and tax accountants go out and get real jobs!!

You have typical wrong way right wing thinking.... They took less from YOU, but NOT from me. That means, assuming all else was equal, you wound up with MORE money in your pocket than I did.

Dude, I understood your point the first time. I just don't consider getting to keep what's mine as LARGESSE. I'm with Chuck and tom, let's make it equal.

Steve

P.S. I don't think a drug test is necessary as a precondition to getting government largesse, but I think it reasonable as a condition to CONTINUED long term government largesse for those capable of supporting themselves. It's not financially or morally responsible to intentionally expand the nanny state. I LOVE helping others, I don't love when politicians take more of my money and give it to people who game the system.

P.P.S. Obama solicitor general: If you don't like mandate, earn less money (http://washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/beltway-confidential/2011/06/obama-solicitor-general-if-you-dont-mandate-earn-less-money#ixzz1OFZ09khv)

When you are the Governor of any state and you make policies that enrich your own pockets that's not largess, that's a clear conflict of interest, and a violation of the public trust. Especially since his other company defrauded the government already. Forget how you feel about welfare people. That's not the point, enriching yourself at the expense of the state you govern is. And they are still trying to get Blago, and letting this guy do whatever??

Unbelievable! Now the guy in Florida ain't the only one mind you, as Arizona, got a doozy out there with the private prisons deal by her aides, and Michigan and Wisconsin, have their hands full with corporations running the cities and municipalities, I mean what's up with these republican governors?

When you are the Governor of any state and you make policies that enrich your own pockets thats not largess, thats a clear conflict of interest, and a violation of the public trust. Especially since his other company defrauded the government already. Forget how you feel about welfare people. Thats not the point, enriching yourself at the expense of the state you govern is. And they are still trying to get Blago, and letting this guy do whatever???

Unbelievable! now the guy in Florida ain't the only one mind you, as Arizona, got a doozy out there with the private prisons deal by her aides, and Michigan and Wisconsin, have their hands full with corporations running the cities and municipalities, I mean whats up with these republican governors?

One believable that a system exist where one person can have so much power

We give them the power, but they abuse it, and that means we the people have to act in our own interest, to end the abuse, which gladly, some are.

Not to hijack... BUT...

What about the guy in Michigan who won 2 MIL and still can use his food stamps?

Leroy Fick, Millionaire Lottery Winner, Still Using Food Stamps (VIDEO) (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/05/19/leroy-fick-lottery-winner-food-stamps_n_864113.html)

Talk about ABUSE!

Seems the Obama administration's DOE doesn't care much about our rights either. The Department of Education's Office for Civil Rights (OCR) is instructing universities (http://thefire.org/article/13064.html) that receive federal funding, almost all universities, to use a "preponderance of the evidence standard to resolve complaints of sex discrimination" and sexual harassment.

No longer is the criminal standard of "beyond a reasonable doubt" to be employed, but if a finding of just 50.01 percent of probability of guilt is reached, lives can be ruined. The Duke lacrosse case comes to mind here.

So much for "due process."

Big deal from nothing as a request such as this one doesn't stop what the policy is already and was suggested to curb the schools from sweeping stuff under the rug instead of investigate the serious cases. It's a guideline for a starting point to a process, but universities are seeing this push as an intrusion of their right to handle things their way, in house.

Big deal from nothing as a request such as this one doesn't stop what the policy is already and was suggested to curb the schools from sweeping stuff under the rug instead of investigate the serious cases. Its a guideline for a starting point to a process, but universities are seeing this push as an intrusion of their right to handle things their way, in house.

Seriously? Schools aren't sweeping things under the rug, they're already over-zealously persecuting students for the slightest of offenses. Columbia considers "love letters" a form of sexual harassment. UC Santa Cruz considers "terms of endearment" to be sexual harassment. Yale, "unspoken sexual innuendo such as voice inflection" is sexual harassment. But, I'm sure the Vagina Monologues is still welcome on campus.

As in the Duke rape case we're talking felony here, not a parking ticket. They better damn well be sure they've got "clear and convincing" evidence before destroying someone's life. Someone charged with sexual assault deserves more than a "preponderance of the evidence."

Someone charged with sexual assault deserves more than a "preponderance of the evidence."

So tell that to the ones charged with gathering the evidence. Universities don't, they just want to get it over with and not be burdened with accusations that may or may not be serious issues, or even true ones. That's what a preponderance of the evidence means. You actually have to investigate, and see what the truth is and not pass it off, or ignore it.

There are two sides here the one accused, and the VICTIM. Who's right when you can't be convinced, and there is NO clear and convincing evidence, one way, or another.

That's what the edict was pushing for, taking any incident, or allegation serious enough for it to be put into professional hands just in case the victim was telling the truth, and there was a felony.

Sure you may cite example of overzealous behavior, but there are many cases of crimes being hushed up, and swept under the rug, for whatever reason, just to stop a bunch of unwanted attention, or publicity, by these schools.

Preponderance of the evidence is an instruction that's used in every court of law to the jury that's charged with judging innocence, and guilt, and in the case you cited, they are saying don't judge until you get the whole story, and that's all you can expect when charged with any crime in America from the court. Doesn't matter who is accused, or who does the accusing. Its about due diligence in judging facts, in the fairest manner humanly possible.

Never done jury duty, huh?

Never done jury duty, huh??

That's a hell of an assumption. Um, I've been through voir dire numerous times. And served as a juror in a murder trial, a case of sexual abuse of a child and medical malpractice. I'm quite experienced in the process.

The latter we were charged with a "preponderance of the evidence," meaning essentially you put both sides on a scale and whichever way it tilts in the least is how you find. That is the standard used for civil trials in this country.

The first two we were charged with finding "beyond a reasonable doubt," meaning we had to be damn sure they were guilty before returning with a finding of guilt. That is the standard for criminal trials in this country. Sexual abuse and sexual assault are CRIMINAL charges - no matter the jurisdiction. You can't sweep THAT under the rug.

Darn Steve, you are sharp, and the distinctions you make are on the money, but goes to my point about the standard that are recommended for schools to follow when the have an accuser of wrong doing. Since they cannot judge guilt or innocence, and apply the LAW, they at least have to meet the minimum civil standard for redress by university RULES Of proper behavior. That's to prevent them from sweeping things under a rug. There have been many instances of universities doing this, and when in doubt, call a cop, they will be the final determinate of what's criminal, what's civil, and what's the truth, because they are better equipped, and trained to investigate. Sweeping things under a rug though, is unacceptable.


Someone charged with sexual assault deserves more than a "preponderance of the evidence."

That's for a court to decide, not a school official. It should be reported to the proper authorities, and as you know whether there is enough evidence or facts, a civil suit is up to the party involved, whether they are found guilty or not in a court of law. Until one is lawfully charged with an offense, felony, or misdemeanor, its still has to be a duly authorized officer of the court. Not a university official.

This whole thing started with the universities, and schools arbitrarily labeling someone a trouble maker, and kicking them out, no matter the situation. Is that a fair standard? Because they said it was so??