Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Krasch
And the Supreme Court has held that freedom of association is an essential part of Freedom of Speech, the First Amendment.
|
In Coffin v. United states (156 U.S. 432 (1895), the supreme court ruled in favor of the 'presumption of innocence' and placed the burden of proof on the accuser to prove that an individual committed a crime, (and again, the principle of habeus corpus requires that evidence a crime has already been committed must precede a certain person being accused of a crime). The case specifically referenced the 4th, 5th, 6th and 14th amendments to the constitution as the rationale, as well as instances from international law.
Before you could invoke the freedom of association to exclude someone for drug use, you would FIRST need evidence that the person was a drug user. Your constitional right to free association doesn't nullify the potential hiree's constitutional rights of habeaus corpus, the presumption of innocence and illegal search and siezure. So you can't sieze a potential employee's property (their bodily fluids) for drug testing without probable cause. Furthermore, the nature of the property being siezed (bodily fluids) could be construed as a violation of their 5th amendment rights against self-incrimination.
If a case against drug testing were ever to be heard by the supreme court, it would be guaranteed to be ruled unconstitutional. That's why very powerful forces are trying to make sure that such a case never gets there.
Wake up Americans.
And why the hell are all the libertarians on this board keeping so quiet on this? I'm practically a liberal and I know that employment drug screening is WRONG.