“Unconstitutional” does not mean “I disagree with this law.” So when your argument that a new law that requires drug testing welfare recipients (or any law, really) is not unconstitutional hinges on the fact that you agree with the law and not on the law’s consistence with the Constitution, you are wrong. Not because I say so, but because you are not even following the basic logic you claim you are.
Either argue the merits of the law based in its constitutionality, or argue that you dis/agree with it. Those are not the same thing.
Thank you. This has been a PSA.