The drug testing is to show the people need the help if they use the welfare money to buy drugs and do not feed their kids how does it help the children the democrats say they care about?? Do you want them to go hungry?? Why do they not CARE??

Gibberish.

The Constitution has no cover. It simply is.

Nor did I say I wanted anyone to purchase and keep weapons.
The Constitution says I have no say in the matter.

Nor did I say I wanted people to go hungry or come out in support of a particular way of helping the needy.
I think the plan is silly, but that doesn’t make it unconstitutional.

AND
“After all, that same document did provide that the government would promote the general welfare, didn’t it?”

No, it said that was the purpose and intent, not the guaranteed result.
“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.”

AND
“And the greater issue is the presumption of guilt by the government, i.e., the need to prove innocence in order to be helped.”

Guilt is for crimes.
The Fourth applies in matters of crime.
Disbursal of benefits is not compelled or a matter of crime and thus the Fourth does not apply.
(Unless the Supreme Court says it does, in which case it does because the Constitution gives them the ultimate say in the matter.)

It’s like when Kanye wants the disabled to prove they’re disabled.
Not smart but not illegal.

David for literacy

My answer isn’t serious, but it is accurate:

No, elected officials do not have to take drug tests to take office; they have to convince voters to elect them. This fact probably explains some of their actions.

Are you suggesting those who receive aid should only get it upon a majority vote of the general population? Hard hearted!

David for better people

I am glad you go to the cover of the Constitution to effectively say “we’d rather allow drug/alcohol abusers the ability to purchase and keep weapons that can kill someone without testing than pay for somebody with a drug/alcohol problem to eat, have a roof, or feed a child”

After all, that same document did provide that the government would promote the general welfare, didn’t it?

See, we can go round and round throwing the Founding Fathers wisdom at one another, but the real facts are this: it costs the taxpayer more to test for these alleged abuses of the system than to just help the people and deal with cheaters as they are identified.

And the greater issue is the presumption of guilt by the government, i.e., the need to prove innocence in order to be helped. I for one, do not want to give my government the power to say I must prove anything to them without cause. You know, the 4th amendment of the Constitution and all that.

So, we may agree to disagree I’m sure.

Valid question. The answer is:
NO, IT DOES NOT.
The follow up question SHOULD be:
Is that legal/constitutional?
The answer is obviously:
No, it is not.

We don’t like to ask the question because we are allowing crazy, dangerous people to roam freely and pretending they will be safe to be around if we only don’t sell them guns. Any half-way intelligent person could kill a thousand people and never come near a gun.
Those who would want to do so should not be walking around freely — armed or unarmed.
That is simply silly.

AND
“I am against drug testing period. I feel that it is assuming that you are guilty and you must prove that you are innocent”

You are right. It does make that assumption. But it is not a matter of guilt, rather one of whether or not we wish to give money to certain people. If we do, we can require certain actions on their part but should not require them to take our money or our tests.

AND
“there should be some reasonable suspicion to require someone to give their blood or urine to be tested”

Why?
We aren’t talking about reason, we’re talking about government.
Nonetheless, it is not required, only a requirement for freebies.

David for free dope for dopes,
food, clothing and shelter for the needy