Rights or right?

A federal judge in Florida recently issued a temporary injunction on a Florida law requiring welfare applicants to pass a drug test before receiving benefits. Judge Mary Scriven ruled that people's fourth amendment right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure would be violated if this law went into effect.

Lebron, who is the sole caretaker of his 4-year-old son, said he's "happy that the judge stood up for me and my rights and said the state can't act without a reason or suspicion."


I am glad to see this applicant aware of and defending his Constitutional right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures, but where in the Constitution do we find his right to someone else's property without just compensation? In the real world, you can only lay claim to someone else's property in exchange for negotiated labor or other property.

If someone broke into your house and, with loaded gun in hand, demanded your property to make a living, they would be arrested, tried and convicted of burglary and theft. Is it any more right to acquire someone's property using the power of the state? While the state government may have that option under our current Constitution, the federal government does not, but it uses its power to force states into one-size-fits-all policies left solely to the states by the same Constitution.

Assume for a moment that public welfare is right since this system has been in place for so long. Do we expect the state to simply redistribute this property without any strings attached? If state governmentss choose to implement such policies, they should be allowed to apply as many or as few restrictions as they see fit and their budgets allow.