Comments on: Lawsuit over Denial of Federal Financial Aid to College Students with Drug Convictions

By: Deoxy

Deoxy — Thu, 23 Mar 2006 09:54:55 +0000

“The second argument boils down to the premise that “Congress has no rational basis” for making the law. If that objection sticks, then most of the whole Federal Code should be repealed.”

+infinity

That’s so unbelievably true.

By: gasman

gasman — Wed, 22 Mar 2006 20:14:57 +0000

I agree that painting this group, convicted drug crimes, with such a broad brush is perhaps poor public policy. The difficulty lies in whether the state can write a better law that is appropriatly discriminant in determining good candidates for federal funds versus poor candidates for the public largess.

But poor public policy in properly enacted law does not mean it is unconstitutional. The legislature is well within its bounds to make this law and the only redress is petition of the legislature to reconsider this.

People want the constitution to be about ‘Fair’. Anything that seems unfair is perceived to be unconstitutional, and that if only we read the constitution with the secret decoder glasses worn by revisionists we will see the truth.

When bad but constitutional law is made, the only redress is back to the lelislative branch.

By: Mac

Mac — Wed, 22 Mar 2006 16:25:42 +0000

The second argument boils down to the premise that “Congress has no rational basis” for making the law. If that objection sticks, then most of the whole Federal Code should be repealed.

By: jkj9s

jkj9s — Wed, 22 Mar 2006 16:07:50 +0000

Mr. Bader seems to be assuming that those convicted of a drug offense are necessarily still active drug users when they apply for financial aide. Take a young person who was arrested with a joing at the age of 18 while taking some time off before college to work – this person would be ineligible for finacial aide. Take another young person who gets tanked at a high school graduation party, drives drunk, kills someone, gets convicted of manslaughter and serves some time – this kid would be eligible for a subsidized education.
Both young people could be equally reformed, equally sober, and equally likely to take their education seriously.
That isn’t to say that this lawsuit isn’t a stinker, but lets not assume that repealing the law would mean a bunch of hippies smoking dope on the public dime.

By: KipEsquire

KipEsquire — Wed, 22 Mar 2006 15:12:40 +0000

The courts have been fairly clear on this: double jeopardy refers only to multiple trials, not multiple punishments.

By: David Wilson

David Wilson — Wed, 22 Mar 2006 14:26:37 +0000

Yes, there has been litigation over whether government treatment of convicts outside the criminal justice system is “Double Jeopardy,” for instance, preventing those with violent felonies from owning handguns. For the most part, courts have ruled that the person is being classified under a regulation, not punished again.

By: Hans Bader

Hans Bader — Wed, 22 Mar 2006 13:38:41 +0000

Why on earth should we subsidize the college tuitions of people who have proven through their past actions that they are likely to spend their time taking drugs rather than studying?

The limit on financial aid that the ACLU is challenging in its baseless lawsuit is directly linked to the very educational purpose underlying the financial aid program, and is thus a sensible exercise of Congress’s authority under the spending clause to keep federal funds from being wasted.

I am a critic of the war on drugs, which fills jails with people who are not dangerous and leaves less jail space for violent criminals.

But I am not a critic of this modest provision, which does not criminalize drug use, but rather avoids subsidizing those who engage in it.