Government Welfare Reform: Part One

Is Drug-testing Unconstitutional?

Just a warning, I’m going to use some quotes and cite some references in this post; but that doesn’t make this any less an opinion article. I only hope to express some things I believe are relevant to the topic of Welfare reform. First, the promotion of the general welfare is one of the primary aims of our constitution. It is right there at the top before any article or amendment. It reads:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America. Preamble to the U.S. Constitution [∞]

The viability of Welfare programs or their usefulness is not in question. The government is clearly authorized by and responsible to its people for providing such programs. Furthermore, I don’t believe poor people are being unfairly or maliciously targeted by any suggested reforms to existing Welfare programs. The question regarding Welfare is how we, through law, can establish an effective means to help the poor in a sustainable way.

“Poor communities are best served when they are empowered to care for themselves. The more they come to rely on government checks the less they learn to rely on their own ability and ingenuity. Our party firmly believes in a safety net. We reject the idea of the safety net becoming a hammock.” Republican Allen West of Florida’s 22nd District [¤]

Government by its definition deals with managing limited resources. It is because our resources are not unlimited, we must concern ourselves with how to make our dollars most effective in their application. We must also consider whether the money we dedicate to a solution does harm, and how we can mitigate that harm through effective controls. But anytime government controls are expanded, there is controversy.

As it is with so many controversial political questions, mandatory drug-testing for Welfare applicants seems to boil down to how we define freedom in this country. We all want the freedom of choice. Whether it is simple choices like choosing what we watch, what we listen to, what we wear; or major choices like how we observe our religion, whether we carry a gun, who we marry, where we live, or whether we have children; the fact is we want our choice to be exempt from any external control. We want freedom from oppression and freedom from injustice. That being said, we instinctively bristle at the word “mandatory” in almost any context. So, when “mandatory drug-testing” is suggested, there’s a part of us that says “I think not,” but let’s consider this a minute. Is the government trying to take away someone’s right to choose, or is it simply providing a means by which it can reasonably expect a responsible choice?

The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act passed in 1996 made unemployment benefits contingent upon an active effort by the able-bodied applicant to obtain a new job. So, in order to receive an unemployment check, you have to commit yourself to finding work. If it can be proven that you are not doing at least that much, you will forfeit your eligibility for government assistance. This preserves the freedom of choice nicely. I can get help from the government, but while I get that help, I have to go out and seek a job. If I want to just sit around and not look for work, I am essentially choosing to stop getting help from the government, or I face possible prosecution for defrauding the government. Attached to this legislation was the 1996 Welfare Reform Act which “authorized – but did not require – states to impose mandatory drug testing as a prerequisite to receiving state welfare assistance.” [§]

It is my belief that drug-testing is never mandatory. Private companies often ask their employees or applicants to provide drug-test results, and employment is contingent upon a “clean” test. A person can refuse to submit to a drug test and thereby make a choice as to whether that job is something they want more than their freedom to use illegal drugs. It works just fine in the private realm since the employer is free to determine for itself what is reasonable as a condition for employment. But does the government have the right to determine for someone what a responsible choice is? Isn’t that what we ask it to do every day by granting it legislative, executive, and judicial powers? We ask it to make laws restricting people from irresponsible choices like assault, murder, and theft. We ask it to find and detain people who make these kinds of irresponsible choices, and we sit as jurors to help it determine guilt and punishment. The government is an extension of the people; so, if we tell the government it is reasonable to expect a person receiving public funds to conform to public laws, then drug-testing would fall under Article I section 8 of the constitution. The part giving us/it the power “to make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.”[∞] After all, everyone retains their freedom to choose.

The primary argument against this seems to be that randomly drug-testing all Welfare recipients is unfair because random drug-tests are not required for all other recipients of public funds like government contractors, students receiving federal aid, or many public service jobs. I agree that drug-testing is underutilized as a means of qualifying for government programs, but I disagree with the reasoning that it is unfair to apply it directly to a program that is being harmed by illegal drug use. If graduation rates for students receiving federal aid are dropping, it would warrant an investigation as to why. If illegal drug use is common among the students that don’t reach graduation, it would make perfect sense to add random drug-testing to the qualification process. We wouldn’t even need to establish a cause and effect relationship. It is reasonable on its face to ask that taxpayer money have strings that cause its recipients to conform to laws bought and paid for by taxpayers.

I call fairness the primary argument because that is the one that has the most teeth in my opinion. Many other arguments are put forth and most detractors stand on the 4th Amendment right protecting against unreasonable searches.

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. Amendment IV of the U.S. Constitution [∞]

To me, this position is a distortion of the constitution. Applicants are explicitly agreeing to the reasonability of the search upon applying for government assistance because We the People are declaring it reasonable by law. If it’s undesirable or invasive, so be it. Government controlled Welfare is temporary and not meant to be a permanent means of sustenance. The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals disagreed in 2003 when it struck down a drug-testing measure in Michigan designed to screen Welfare applicants. Federal Judge Mary Scriven of Florida recently granted an injunction to a Florida resident on similar grounds, but the major issue appears to be how the law fails to protect test results from being used by law enforcement. [µ]

I don’t fully understand why we expect lawmakers to draft laws that shield people from being prosecuted for illegal activity. If you are robbing a bank and get caught, isn’t it right that you are prosecuted? Similarly, if you are using illegal drugs, and are caught, why should you not be held accountable? Wouldn’t this put more people into rehabilitation programs that could conceivably help the violator? The government isn’t compelling people to take the drug-test. It is simply requiring that they must in order to become eligible for assistance. Here’s how it works. If someone fails or refuses the initial drug-test, they are denied assistance, but can reapply immediately. If after becoming eligible and receiving benefits, a person fails or refuses a randomly administered drug-test, they are denied further assistance and are ineligible from reapplying for one year. Complete a drug course and they can reapply in 6 months. Fail two randomly administered tests and they are ineligible for 3 years. [µ]

The next major objection I’ve come across is this, and I paraphrase. “What will happen to the poor and the children whose parents become ineligible for government assistance because of drug use or addiction? Addiction is a disease, and poor kids shouldn’t suffer because their poor parents are sick.” (Bleeding hearts so full of compassion that they want to save everyone even if they have to spend all your money to do it.) Here is the real tough truth. Governments are not designed, nor are they meant to be driven purely by compassion. That is the specific function of the Church. Jesus, as head of the Church, commands us to make no qualification concerning giving help to widows, orphans, the poor, and the broken. It is curious that the same people clamoring for additional separation between Church and state are the ones that object so heartily to drug-testing people on Welfare. Why is this? They want the government to take on the function of the Church but they also want the government to restrict the Church from functioning.

Now Scripture is called for I think. Isaiah 58:10 tells us, “and if you spend yourselves in behalf of the hungry and satisfy the needs of the oppressed, then your light will rise in the darkness, and your night will become like the noonday.” [†] There is no denying that a portion of the population is diabolically opposed to the Church and prefers darkness over light – lies over truth. They wish to stamp out the Church because in the absence of light, darkness can reign. Without truth bearers, they are free to deceive and oppress whom they may. Take a careful look at the history lesson given by Allan West in his congressional speech for black history month and do some research. [¤] It may prove enlightening.

Here’s the truth. The government receives its limited power from people and has limited resources. The Church is funded and empowered by an unlimited God. If an addict offers himself up to the mercy of God, the Church will care for him and his family and will see to it that whatever help is required is offered. The poor are welcomed drunk or high, humble or proud, sincere or false. No one is deserving of the mercy of God, so the Church makes no determination of worth. We trust that God values and loves all who seek his mercy, and His grace is sufficient for the task. Those whose agenda it is to keep an addict in darkness by allowing government programs to enable the broken thus preventing them from turning to a higher power only hinder the healing power of God.

Online Resources:
[†] Isaiah 58
[∞] U.S. Constitution
[¤] View Allen West speech at mrctv.org
[§] ACLU article
[µ] Associated Press, Oct. 25, 2011