The Nation | elmsprogressivemedia

Welfare Drug Testing Bill Withdrawl After Amended To Include Testing Lawmakers

First Posted: 01/27/2012 5:36 pm Updated: 01/27/2012 6:27 pm

React

Important
Funny
Typical
Scary
Outrageous
Amazing
Innovative
Finally

Follow

Video , Class Warfare , Temporary Assistance For Needy Families , Drug Testing , Indiana Drug Testing , Unemployment Drug Test , Welfare , Welfare Drug Testing , Politics News

share this story

Get Politics Alerts

Submit this story

A Republican member of the Indiana General Assembly withdrew his bill to create a pilot program for drug testing welfare applicants Friday after one of his Democratic colleagues amended the measure to require drug testing for lawmakers.

“There was an amendment offered today that required drug testing for legislators as well and it passed, which led me to have to then withdraw the bill,” said Rep. Jud McMillin (R-Brookville), sponsor of the original welfare drug testing bill.

The Supreme Court ruled drug testing for political candidates unconstitutional in 1997, striking down a Georgia law. McMillin said he withdrew his bill so he could reintroduce it on Monday with a lawmaker drug testing provision that would pass constitutional muster.

“I’ve only withdrawn it temporarily,” he told HuffPost, stressing he carefully crafted his original bill so that it could survive a legal challenge. Last year a federal judge, citing the Constitution’s ban on unreasonable search and seizure, struck down a Florida law that required blanket drug testing of everyone who applied for welfare.

McMillin’s bill would overcome constitutional problems, he said, by setting up a tiered screening scheme in which people can opt-out of random testing. Those who decline random tests would only be screened if they arouse “reasonable suspicion,” either by their demeanor, by being convicted of a crime, or by missing appointments required by the welfare office.

In the past year Republican lawmakers have pursued welfare drug testing in more than 30 states and in Congress, and some bills have even targeted people who claim unemployment insurance and food stamps, despite scanty evidence the poor and jobless are disproportionately on drugs. Democrats in several states have countered with bills to require drug testing elected officials. Indiana state Rep. Ryan Dvorak (D-South Bend) introduced just such an amendment on Friday.

“After it passed, Rep. McMillin got pretty upset and pulled his bill,” Dvorak said. “If anything, I think it points out some of the hypocrisy. … If we’re going to impose standards on drug testing, then it should apply to everybody who receives government money.”

Dvorak said McMillin was mistaken to think testing the legislature would be unconstitutional, since the stricken Georgia law targeted candidates and not people already holding office.

McMillan, for his part, said he’s coming back with a new bill on Monday, lawmaker testing included. He said he has no problem submitting to a test himself.

“I would think legislators that are here who are responsible for the people who voted them in, they should be more than happy to consent,” he said. “Give me the cup right now and I will be happy to take the test.”

Also on HuffPost:

FOLLOW HUFFPOST POLITICS

ON

Facebook:

Like

106K

Twitter:

Get Alerts

CONTRIBUTE

TO THIS STORY

Subscribe to the HuffPost Hill newsletter!

January 28, 2012

Armando Olmos

3 Comments

Ayn Rand Political Philosophy

by Ayn Rand

Dumb Voter No More . com

POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY -ayn rand

Dumb Voter No More . com

What Really Goes On In Washington

Philosophy of Liberty

Where We Went Wrong

What We Need To Do

Limiting Politicians

Democracy vs Freedom

Man’s Rights

FOUNDATION of a FREE SOCIETY

Good Govt Protects Individual Rights

Property and Government

Freedom, Individual Rights, Capitalism

Bankruptcy of a Mixed Economy

FREEDOM and GOVERNMENT

Land of Liberty – Society and Government

Rewards of Economic Freedom

Separation of Economics and State

Flat Tax vs Sales Tax

Library of Liberty

Common Sense Laws

What’s Wrong With Conservatives

FREE MARKETS and LIBERTY

The Law and Plunder

Politicians, Plunder, Wasteful Spending

Constitution and Progressives

Learning From Walter Williams

POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY -ayn rand

Capitalism Center

Principles of a Free Society vs The Road to Socialism

Government, Capitalism, Welfare

Income Inequality – World Poverty

Free People Are Not Equal and Equal People Are Not Free

Collectivism-Statism-Socialism-Communism

FREE TRADE

Bloody Politics – Why Socialism Failed

Vision of a Free Society

Proper Government

Foreign Policy

Government Spending – Global Capitalism

Collectivism vs Individualism

Taxes Can Destroy

Capitalism and Selfishness

Man-Government-Liberty-Tyranny

The Basic Issue–Mixed Economy–Seven Principles

Individual Rights

Life , Liberty , Property

Politicians and the Economy

Rights and Limited Government

Good Sites to Visit

Vices and Crimes – A Better Philosophy

Immigration

Constitutional Primer #7 – Property Rights

Right to Own Guns

Majority Limited and Pursuit of Happiness

POLITICS and FREEDOM

The American Revolution – Classical Liberalism

Politics and Plunder – Welfare and Charity

What Is Money – Seperating Money and State

Separating School and State

POLITICS – PART 2

Taxes and Property

The Anatomy of the State

American Government Idea’s

Good Quotes

ABORTION , Questions and Answers

Learn Economics Here

Three Youngsters Drown

INCOME for LIFE

OUR LORD’S PROPHECY PREDICTED AND FULFILLED

JESUS CAME BACK

FUTURISM, FIGURATIVE PRETERISM and LITERAL PRETERISM by W. Hibbard

WERE THE APOSTLES FALSE PROPHETS? by M. Fenemore

Lee’s Bio

GUESTBOOK & LINKS

1. What Is the Basic Issue in the World Today?

    The basic issue in the world today is between two principles: Individualism and Collectivism.
    Individualism holds that man has inalienable rights which cannot be taken away from him by any other man, nor by any number, group or collective of other men. Therefore, each man exists by his own right and for his own sake, not for the sake of the group.
    Collectivism holds that man has no rights; that his work, his body and his personality belong to the group; that the group can do with him as it pleases, in any manner it pleases, for the sake of whatever it decides to be its own welfare. Therefore, each man exists only by the permission of the group and for the sake of the group.
    These two principles are the roots of two opposite social systems. The basic issue of the world today is between these two systems.

2. What Is a Social System?

    A social system is a code of laws which men observe in order to live together. Such a code must have a basic principle, a starting point, or it cannot be devised. The starting point is the question: Isthe power of society limited or unlimited?
    Individualism answers: The power of society is limited by the inalienable, individual rights of man. Society may make only such laws as do not violate these rights.
    Collectivism answers: The power of society is unlimited. Society may make any laws it wishes, and force them upon anyone in any manner it wishes.
    Example: Under a system of Individualism, a million men cannot pass a law to kill one man for their own benefit. If they go ahead and kill him, they are breaking the law — which protects his right to life — and they are punished.
    Under a system of Collectivism, a million men (or anyone claiming to represent them) can pass a law to kill one man (or any minority), whenever they think they would benefit by his death. His right to live is not recognized.
    Under Individualism, it is illegal to kill the man and it is legal for him to protect himself. The law is on the side of a right. Under Collectivism, it is legal for the majority to kill a man and it is illegal for him to defend himself. The law is on the side of a number.
    In the first case, the law represents a moral principle.
    In the second case, the law represents the idea that there are no moral principles, and men can do anything they please, provided there’s enough of them.
    Under a system of Individualism, men are equal before the law at all times. Each has the same rights, whether he is alone or has a million others with him.
    Under a system of Collectivism, men have to gang up on one another — and whoever has the biggest gang at the moment, holds all rights, while the loser (the individual or the minority) has none. Any man can be an absolute master or a helpless slave — according to the size of his gang.
    An example of the first system: The United States of America. (See: The Declaration of Independence.)
    An example of the second system: Soviet Russia and Nazi Germany.
    Under the Soviet system, millions of peasants or “kulaks” were exterminated by law, a law justified by the pretext that this was for the benefit of the majority, which the ruling group contended was anti-kulak. Under the Nazi system, millions of Jews were exterminated by law, a law justified by the pretext that this was for the benefit of the majority, which the ruling group contended was anti-Semitic.
    The Soviet law and the Nazi law were the unavoidable and consistent result of the principle of Collectivism. When applied in practice, a principle which recognizes no morality and no individual rights, can result in nothing except brutality.
    Keep this in mind when you try to decide what is the proper social system. You have to start by answering the first question. Either the power of society is limited, or it is not. It can’t be both.

3. What Is the Basic Principle of America?

The basic principle of the United States of America is Individualism.
America is built on the principle that Man possesses Inalienable Rights;

that these rights belong to each man as an individual — not to “men” as a group or collective;
that these rights are the unconditional, private, personal, individual possession of each man — not the public, social, collective possession of a group;
that these rights are granted to man by the fact of his birth as a man — not by an act of society;
that man holds these rights, not from the Collective nor for the Collective, but against the Collective — as a barrier which the Collective cannot cross;
that these rights are man’s protection against all other men;
that only on the basis of these rights can men have a society of freedom, justice, human dignity, and decency.

The Constitution of the United States of America is not a document that limits the rights of man — but a document that limits the power of society over man.

4. What Is a Right?

A right is the sanction of independent action. A right is that which can be exercised without anyone’s permission.
If you exist only because society permits you to exist — you have no right to your own life. A permission can be revoked at any time.
If, before undertaking some action, you must obtain the permission of society — you are not free, whether such permission is granted to you or not. Only a slave acts on permission. A permission is not a right.
Do not make the mistake, at this point, of thinking that a worker is a slave and that he holds his job by his employer’s permission. He does not hold it by permission — but by contract, that is, by a voluntary mutual agreement. A worker can quit his job. A slave cannot.

5. What Are the Inalienable Rights of Man?

The inalienable Rights of Men ar

.

January 28, 2012

Armando Olmos

12 Comments

Franklin D. Roosevelt

Franklin D. Roosevelt

Assuming the Presidency at the depth of the Great Depression, Franklin D. Roosevelt helped the American people regain faith in themselves. He brought hope as he promised prompt, vigorous action, and asserted in his Inaugural Address, “the only thing we have to fear is fear itself.”

Born in 1882 at Hyde Park, New York–now a national historic site–he attended Harvard University and Columbia Law School. On St. Patrick’s Day, 1905, he married Eleanor Roosevelt.

Following the example of his fifth cousin, President Theodore Roosevelt, whom he greatly admired, Franklin D. Roosevelt entered public service through politics, but as a Democrat. He won election to the New York Senate in 1910. President Wilson appointed him Assistant Secretary of the Navy, and he was the Democratic nominee for Vice President in 1920.

In the summer of 1921, when he was 39, disaster hit-he was stricken with poliomyelitis. Demonstrating indomitable courage, he fought to regain the use of his legs, particularly through swimming. At the 1924 Democratic Convention he dramatically appeared on crutches to nominate Alfred E. Smith as “the Happy Warrior.” In 1928 Roosevelt became Governor of New York.

He was elected President in November 1932, to the first of four terms. By March there were 13,000,000 unemployed, and almost every bank was closed. In his first “hundred days,” he proposed, and Congress enacted, a sweeping program to bring recovery to business and agriculture, relief to the unemployed and to those in danger of losing farms and homes, and reform, especially through the establishment of the Tennessee Valley Authority.

By 1935 the Nation had achieved some measure of recovery, but businessmen and bankers were turning more and more against Roosevelt’s New Deal program. They feared his experiments, were appalled because he had taken the Nation off the gold standard and allowed deficits in the budget, and disliked the concessions to labor. Roosevelt responded with a new program of reform: Social Security, heavier taxes on the wealthy, new controls over banks and public utilities, and an enormous work relief program for the unemployed.

In 1936 he was re-elected by a top-heavy margin. Feeling he was armed with a popular mandate, he sought legislation to enlarge the Supreme Court, which had been invalidating key New Deal measures. Roosevelt lost the Supreme Court battle, but a revolution in constitutional law took place. Thereafter the Government could legally regulate the economy.

Roosevelt had pledged the United States to the “good neighbor” policy, transforming the Monroe Doctrine from a unilateral American manifesto into arrangements for mutual action against aggressors. He also sought through neutrality legislation to keep the United States out of the war in Europe, yet at the same time to strengthen nations threatened or attacked. When France fell and England came under siege in 1940, he began to send Great Britain all possible aid short of actual military involvement.

When the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941, Roosevelt directed organization of the Nation’s manpower and resources for global war.

Feeling that the future peace of the world would depend upon relations between the United States and Russia, he devoted much thought to the planning of a United Nations, in which, he hoped, international difficulties could be settled.

As the war drew to a close, Roosevelt’s health deteriorated, and on April 12, 1945, while at Warm Springs, Georgia, he died of a cerebral hemorrhage.