

![]() |
Monday, January 20, 1997
Passing the bottleChallenging candidate drug tests. | |
|
Although the U.S. Supreme Court works in mysterious ways, the questions asked by the justices at a Jan. 4 hearing would indicate considerable skepticism from the bench about a new requirement that all Georgia political candidates submit to drug tests. |
"This court looks a little more closely at totally suspicionless searches, doesn't it?" asked Justice Antonin Scalia. "Doesn't the Constitution come first?" asked Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Indeed it does. The state of Georgia is not a private business, which would enjoy more leeway in setting down employment requirements. As a government entity, it must adhere to stricter constitutional standards. The Supreme Court has upheld mandatory government drug testing in a number of instances, most recently in the case of a high school that tested student athletes. But the court at least demanded some showing that the testing had a practical effect. The state of Georgia, however, all but admitted that its drug-testing of politicians is merely a symbolic attempt to highlight the evils of illegal drug use. This is hardly justification, as Justice Scalia noted, for government to demand that every candidate for political office submit to a suspicionless search. The court is expected to rule by July. Write us at letters@lvrj.com |
|
[News]
[Sports]
[Business]
[Lifestyles]
[Neon]
[Opinion]
[in-depth] [Classifieds] [Help/About] [Home] [Archive] [Current Edition] | ||
[an error occurred while processing this directive]