High School casses do not equal other cases because of the reasonable expectations of a high school administration to be concerned for the welfare of their students in an environment they control. In Chandler v. Miller the court proved that the government as an entity has no right to request drug tests because they lack sufficient reasonable cause to invade the privacy (the court’s words, not mine) of an individual.
I’m not saying I agree with it or disagree with it, but Federal Law trumps State Law for a reason.
Right, but in Chandler v. Miller, the Court saw no connection between running for government office and drug use, i.e. there was insufficient reason to invade the privacy of someone running for public office.
I don’t think that’s the case for welfare recipients, where the government has a greater interest in ensuring that social programs are not going toward drug use.
I think public high school athletes are a better analogy to welfare recipients than candidates for office. But whether I’m right or wrong, this discussion illustrates the importance of states passing borderline unconstitutional laws: we won’t really know which of us is right until the Court itself decides, and they won’t decide until there’s a case to which they can grant cert.
The Founding Fathers envisioned the states as laboratories of democracy. We can’t advance our understanding of the Constitution without fucking around in the lab.
Chandler v. Miller, 1997.
Unconstitutional State Laws. NF.
14 years ago at 9:42 pmEeeehh, I think Vernonia School Dist. 47J v. Acton, 1995 is the better precedent here.
Also, pushing back against the federal government = FaF.
14 years ago at 10:04 pmHigh School casses do not equal other cases because of the reasonable expectations of a high school administration to be concerned for the welfare of their students in an environment they control. In Chandler v. Miller the court proved that the government as an entity has no right to request drug tests because they lack sufficient reasonable cause to invade the privacy (the court’s words, not mine) of an individual.
I’m not saying I agree with it or disagree with it, but Federal Law trumps State Law for a reason.
14 years ago at 11:50 pmRight, but in Chandler v. Miller, the Court saw no connection between running for government office and drug use, i.e. there was insufficient reason to invade the privacy of someone running for public office.
I don’t think that’s the case for welfare recipients, where the government has a greater interest in ensuring that social programs are not going toward drug use.
I think public high school athletes are a better analogy to welfare recipients than candidates for office. But whether I’m right or wrong, this discussion illustrates the importance of states passing borderline unconstitutional laws: we won’t really know which of us is right until the Court itself decides, and they won’t decide until there’s a case to which they can grant cert.
The Founding Fathers envisioned the states as laboratories of democracy. We can’t advance our understanding of the Constitution without fucking around in the lab.
14 years ago at 7:07 amabout fucking time.
14 years ago at 9:23 pm