It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Supreme Court declines to review county's routine searches of welfare applicants' homes

page: 1
2

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 27 2007 @ 10:54 AM
link   

Supreme Court declines to review county's routine searches of welfare applicants' homes


www.nctimes.com

The justices refused, without comment, to intervene in the case from San Diego County, where investigators from the local District Attorney's office show up unannounced at applicants' homes and conduct searches that include peeking into closets and cabinets. The visits do not require any suspicion of fraud and are intended to confirm that people are eligible for government aid.

Failure to submit to the searches, which can last an hour, disqualifies applicants from assistance.

(visit the link for the full news article)




posted on Nov, 27 2007 @ 10:54 AM
link   
Isn't an unannounced search of a residence by a government agency a clear violation of 4th Amendment rights? Even the landlord has to give 24 hour notice of a visit to a renter.

The fact that applicants are automatically denied benefits if they won't submit to what I consider an unreasonable search astounds me. What are the investigators looking for in cabinets and closets, anyway? Hidden bling? They could just as easily surveil such activity externally, couldn't they? What good is having it if you can't flaunt it?

It is humiliating enough to have to apply for welfare, but to then be forced to submit to an unannounced search of your residence is just too much. The fact that the USSC won't even hear the case speaks volumes about its orientation these days. Who cares about the poor little guy who can't fend for himself anymore? Not the government, that's for sure.

I can assure you that God does, though, and His judgment on those who don't will be swift and final.

www.nctimes.com
(visit the link for the full news article)



posted on Nov, 27 2007 @ 11:03 AM
link   
Welfare recipients aren't exactly like renters. They're more like children living under their parents roof off of their parents money. If dads money (government money or better yet mine and your money) is putting the roof over your head doesn't dad have a right to make sure his money isn't being used improperly?

I'm a believer that "dad" shouldn't be as loose with the money as he is.

Welfare is a public investment with incredibly high socio-economic cost for everyone that pays taxes. We own their ass so to speak.

In an ideal world any and all welfare would be abolished. Until then it's our money and I say we check up on them from time to time.

Some guy ahead of me in the supermarket yesterday was using EBT to buy his groceries then left and climbed into the drivers seat of a brand new Impala.


And at the root of it you're asking for government help. If you want college loans you have to sign up for draft, if you want WIC you have to buy certain foods.

You don't want to do what government says you have to do then stop relying on the government for stuff.



posted on Nov, 27 2007 @ 11:18 AM
link   
So being needy for a time means you give up your basic rights guaranteed by the Constitution? They might as well put welfare applicants in prison then, or better yet, concentration camps. That's where all this is leading anyway. Just hope you never get hurt or lose your job or run out of money and benefits and have to depend on the government.

Btw, isn't some of that money you say is yours and mine the applicants, as well? While they were able to work and maintain their households, weren't they contributing to the system, too? So, now that they are in need, to heck with them?



posted on Nov, 27 2007 @ 11:24 AM
link   
Welcome to the police state.What exactly do they expect to find in the closet?A pile of money making the applicant ineligible for that monthly pitance called welfare??



posted on Nov, 27 2007 @ 11:44 AM
link   
reply to post by Icarus Rising
 


What Constitutional right is being violated? Unlawful search and seizure? That's easy enough for the government to get around. Probable cause? They just make up some threat. Sworn affidavit? Get some "social worker" earning a government paycheck to do that. Accountability of the issuing court? That hasn't been worth anything since politicians and judges got all involved with each other. Hell, the SC could very well be on its way to stating the 2nd Amendment is a privilege and not a right. The Constitution doesn't mean anything to the taxing entity that rules over us. Take their paychecks, take their guns, enslave them all and they'll vote for more (if votes mean anything). That's the new Constitution. Don't like government intrusion in the name of security? Well, vote out the (R) and in a (D) and you get government intrusion in the name of health care. What a difference, huh? Don't like being in Iraq? Vote out the (R) and in a (D) who will stick us in Iran. How much have defense contractors donated to Hillary's campaign?

We'll all be wards of the state eventually with the push to socialize everything and outlaw everything else so unless you're willing to end all government intrusion I say get used to this sort of thing. There is no end in sight. And the only way to end all government intrusion is to stop relying on it to live your life for you. If that means dying poor sick and alone in the woods somewhere then so be it. I'd much rather be poor sick and dying alone in the woods than living on my knees sucking at the government tit. Every American should feel exactly the same way. You don't need a handout to pull yourself up.

The moment you ask for help is the moment you've given your life and subsequently your rights away. We should try independence. Sure it's hard but it beats dependence any day of the week.



posted on Nov, 27 2007 @ 11:57 AM
link   
Age old story, trading rights for comfort. The more you expect from the government the more the government expects from you. Remember this.



posted on Nov, 27 2007 @ 12:35 PM
link   
From the beginning, the mandate of government from God has been to judge the fatherless, minister to the widowed, and care for the poor. I know that ideal has been lost in the modern era. That is what is leading to the downfall of our society.

The reason human beings began gathering together to begin with was common security. Pooling resources to care for each other and provide defense against predators.

When did it become an evil thing to rely on your fellow man to lift you up in time of need, and to do likewise for him?

In the modern era, I'd say it was when Charlemagne and Pope Leo III got together to usurp power from the prevailing bloodlines and institute Church Kingship.



In practical terms, Church kingship has prevailed from the 8th century and has continued, through the ages, to the present day. But the fact is that, under strict terms of sovereign practice, all such monarchies and their affiliated governments have been invalid.

Church kingship is precisely that with which we have become so familiar. It applies to all monarchs who achieve their regnal positions by way of Church coronation by the Pope or other Christian leader (in Britain, by the Archbishop of Canterbury). Previously, in terms of true kingship, there was no necessity for coronation because kingly and queenly inheritance were always regarded as being 'in the blood'.



posted on Nov, 27 2007 @ 12:44 PM
link   
Why is it a problem to violate the constitutional rights of someone who is receiving welfare, which is itself unconstitutional. It clearly illustrates that when you ignore the constitution for things like welfare, it leads to things like ignoring the constitution when it comes to individual rights.



posted on Nov, 27 2007 @ 12:47 PM
link   
How is welfare un-Constitutional? Please back up your claim with some facts or a link or something. This is the first I've heard of it. I've heard that income tax is un-Constitutional, but not welfare.



posted on Nov, 27 2007 @ 12:58 PM
link   
reply to post by Icarus Rising
 


I know people banned together to help and all that stuff. It becomes "evil" when it is forced. There are only two ways in which an individual my choose to "opt out" of the system. Prison and death.

The act of banning together to help the needy itself is noble and quite fine. It's when somebody puts a gun to my head, stands me at a prison gate and demands I participate that it becomes evil.



posted on Nov, 27 2007 @ 01:00 PM
link   
This might help.

members.tripod.com...

Actually you have it backwards. Income tax is constitutional due to the 16th amendment, although it is argued that it was never properly ratified.



posted on Nov, 27 2007 @ 01:05 PM
link   
I am disabled with a few spinal problems and I'm raising my son alone. I live below the poverty line so I have to apply for medical (Medicaid) assistance for my son. I just sent back the papers they send you to make sure your living situation has not changed such as money coming in. Everything looked normal because I have done it before but there was a new form I never seen before. I had to sign away all my rights to privacy such as medical records, bank account, and on and on and on. The list of things I had to relinquish was astonishing and I debated if I should sign it at all knowing if I did not I would be disqualified for the help. I had no choice. My sons health comes before my own if you know what I mean. I'll give my life for my son so giving up my rights to privacy was a price I had to pay.

[edit on 27-11-2007 by cloakndagger]



posted on Nov, 27 2007 @ 01:15 PM
link   
Yes. Federal income tax was initially ruled un-Constitutional. It took the 16th Amendment, which, as you say, may not have been properly ratified, to change that.

I see state welfare programs as Constitutional, others don't. It is a separation of powers, state and federal, and an interpretation of Article 1 Section 8 argument.

The fact is, we have welfare now, at the state and county level. Recipients should not be subject to unreasonable searches in order to receive it, imo. These searches without notice are unreasonable, again imo.



posted on Nov, 27 2007 @ 01:25 PM
link   
I agree that only federal welfare programs are unconstitutional, state and local are. I also agree that they should not give up their constitutional rights. Our current welfare system is only administered by the state, but funded and created by the federal government.

www.frac.org...

If a welfare program is created, administered and funded by the state, it would be constitutional as those things are reserved for the states. That is not what we have now. My point was that as long as the government is allowed to ignore the constitution when it comes to welfare programs, why is it a big surprise when the ignore it when it comes to individual rights?



posted on Nov, 27 2007 @ 01:32 PM
link   
reply to post by cloakndagger
 


I can relate to your situation. I am in the same boat. My son's mom is unemployed and her benefit has run out. Since I let her move back in with me, and I receive SSD, she is ineligible for any public assistance. If it wasn't for our church and families, we would be homeless and starving.



posted on Nov, 27 2007 @ 01:42 PM
link   
reply to post by logicize
 


I can't argue with that. Our illustrious President has refered to the Constitution as a gd piece of paper. Shows the regard it is held in these days. There has been a thread circulating recently saying the Constitution hasn't been in effect since 1933, but I can't find it to link to right now.



posted on Nov, 27 2007 @ 01:45 PM
link   
Have to remember,look carefully of what you are signing,when you sign papers you give the Government 50 % of all your assets,so yes they basically own you till you die




top topics



 
2

log in

join