Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

mitty14u2

(1,015 posts)
Mon Oct 17, 2016, 03:52 PM Oct 2016

Testing Politicians, Candidates for Drugs Unconstitutional 1997 Supreme Court


Chief Justice Rehnquist in his dissent called the near unanimous opinion a “strange holding,” and wrote:
“Under normal Fourth Amendment analysis, the individual's expectation of privacy is an important factor in the equation. But here, the Court perversely relies on the fact that a candidate for office gives up so much privacy—'[c]andidates for public office … are subject to relentless scrutiny—by their peers, the public and the press,' …—as a reason for sustaining a Fourth Amendment claim. The Court says, in effect, that the kind of drug test for candidates required by the Georgia law is unnecessary, because the scrutiny to which they are already subjected by reason of their candidacy will enable people to detect any drug use on their part …

The privacy concerns ordinarily implicated by urinalysis drug testing are 'negligible,' … when the procedures used in collecting and analyzing the urine samples are set up 'to reduce the intrusiveness' of the process. Under the Georgia law, the candidate may produce the test specimen at his own doctor's office, which must be one of the least intrusive types of urinalysis drug tests conceivable.

But although the Court concedes this, it nonetheless manages to count this factor against the State, because with this kind of test the person tested will have advance notice of its being given, and will therefore be able to abstain from drug use during the necessary period of time. But one may be sure that if the test were random—and therefore apt to ensnare more users—the Court would then fault it for its intrusiveness.”

http://www.infoplease.com/cig/supreme-court/testing-politicians-for-drugs.html

I don't think Hillary or Trump should be drug tested but a sanity test should be on the table.

Trump like Bush and Romney first post war Spoiled Rich kids without scruples from draft dodging to heartless elite brats. Educated at the finest schools they much teach to use the the general public or peasants best to suit any desire. Drug testing the masses for jobs is mandatory, the general public are living with the reality of double standards as the norm. I don't think Hillary or Trump should be drug tested but a sanity test should be on the table.
1 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Testing Politicians, Candidates for Drugs Unconstitutional 1997 Supreme Court (Original Post) mitty14u2 Oct 2016 OP
Trump's ignorance, or apathy, of Constitutional tenets is Panich52 Oct 2016 #1

Panich52

(5,829 posts)
1. Trump's ignorance, or apathy, of Constitutional tenets is
Mon Oct 17, 2016, 04:02 PM
Oct 2016

just one more aspect proving he's #UnfitToLead

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Testing Politicians, Cand...