Jefferson City, MO
We, through our representatives, decided that many times. As I said, we are just splitting hairs at this point.
So is this how it reads,"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated unless you are getting paid,
It seems to me that our government operates under the policy of scare them and they can do anything. It wasn't to long ago that Mr. Bernake told everyone what was going to happen tomorrow unless we bailed out the banks. He didn't offer it as opinion, but as fact, and it worked. I am 100% certain that only God knows for certain what tomorrow holds. We should stop being afraid, and while we are at it a big dose of personal responsibility might go along way.
I am a "non-traditional" (old) student at LSTC and related to one of the litigants. This discussion has to be about one word in the Fourth Amendment; "unreasonable". It is my opinion that we have been lax in our interpretation of that word. In one of the first meetings between the ACLU and the students I asked about other drug testing (Pilots / Doctors) and the ACLU attorney affirmed that it was OK for them to be tested. When I asked why, he said public safety, blah, blah... My follow up question about how many drunk pilots have we have heard about in the last year was met with disdain.
It should be exceptional for the Fourth Amendment to be violated, and since that is not the case, we are only splitting hairs at this point. It is OK to violate the rights of others, just don't violate mine;) A question I meant to ask some of the instructors today was do all employees of LSTC get drug tested? The LSTC drug policy would be untenable if they are not.
I hope that LSTC pursues this, it is a discussion, on many levels, that needs to be addressed.
Last login: Monday, August 20, 2012
© 2013 News Tribune Publishing.