Lawmakers tread a fine line between infringing on constitutional rights and protecting Americans. In the aftermath of Sept. 11, citizens gave up some of their rights in order to secure airports.
Security across the country in all public places increased dramatically, closely resembling an infringement on rights. Americans realized security was necessary and although a few object to the random searches, most find solace in the presence of additional security.
Constitutional rights encompass more than civil liberties and reach further than security measures.
The Supreme Court is charged with the responsibility of interpreting the constitution. Currently, a case regarding drug testing of high school students is being debated. A rural Oklahoma school district implemented a policy of testing for drugs as a deterrent to drug use and said they adopted the policy in the absence of a disciplinary problem.
Supreme Court justices are debating the proposal to broaden the law regarding drug testing on high school students. In a heated and sometimes even nasty debate, the justices fought it out.
Some advocate drug testing for all high school students, based on the argument that there is a desire to prevent drug use in all students.
However, it is more plausible that a provision restricting the law to only those participating in extracurricular activities would pass. Paul D. Clement, a deputy solicitor offering the opinion of the Bush administration, said even a law allowing all drug testing is constitutional. It would be easier to pass with the provision because students know the rules and implicitly agree to participate in a drug test, he said.
Despite this argument, the New York Times reported Justice David H. Souter disagreed, referring to a kind of psychological coercion. He argued students would be coerced to participate in the test because they know they need extra-curricular activities to get into college.
In previous Supreme Court decisions the court upheld a ruling allowing the small town of Vernonia to test athletes. They did so for two reasons. First, there was a substantial drug problem and second, the athletes were at the center of it. Although this was held as constitutional, some justices are having trouble expanding the law for fear it infringes on the Fourth Amendment, which prohibits unreasonable searches.
Although drug testing is a prominent issue because of this case, it is not the only possible infraction on the Constitution. Wednesday, the Senate passed sweeping campaign finance reform legislation. Tuesday, the Republican opposition conceded. The measure passed, and while Democrats and supporters rejoiced, Republicans prepared to take the case to court on the basis of its constitutionality.
“I would like to begin by citing the ultimate campaign reform — the First Amendment to the Constitution: Congress shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech,” Sen. Mitch McConnell, R-Kentucky, said on the floor of the Senate chamber after the vote.
McConnell said he was comforted only by the fact that the Supreme Court does not defer to Congress on issues of constitutionality and blamed newspapers for the defeat.
“We have allowed a few powerful editorial pages to prod us into infringing the First Amendment rights of everyone but them,” McConnell said.
Constitutional arguments can be applied to nearly every case, and the Supreme Court must decide to rely on precedents set by previous cases or make a new law. In the case of drug testing, precedent exists to compare to the current situation. However, for campaign-finance reform, should the case go to the Supreme Court, the justices will have to rely on their own wisdom to decide the constitutionality of the recently passed legislation. The Constitution is the most important document dealing with American freedom and even the insight of the justices sometimes proves to be erroneous, as is evident with the forming of new laws.
Morgan Felchner ([email protected]) is a junior majoring in political science.
