If you’d like a more detailed look at this consider this thread.
Long story short, companies can violate your rights all they want. The government then has to enact (or just ignore the issue and hope it goes away) individual laws to protect (or harm) employees.
Well, no. Sometimes they can, sometimes they can’t. There’s just not much consistency behind when they can and can’t as far as I can see.
Um HELLO, I stated very clearly (I thought) that I consider it a violation of the Constitution/Bill of Rights to randomly drug test. (see the 4th amendment).
And made it clear that I recognized the distinction between government and private employers in this regard.
The federal government has LONG recognized that it is not allowed to randomly test for drugs, and so has , instead, actively encouraged the private sector to so do so.
As an informed citizen, I prefer to exercise my right to say FUCK YOU to private interests who impose violations of my Constitutional rights. So sue me. 
I have NO problem with drug testing in the wake of an accident…that is warranted. I DO have a serious problem with random testing either before or after employment.
As somebody who agrees entirely with you that it should not be legal for persons and corporations to drug test people, that action is not a violation of Constitutional rights.
No. They violate laws against kidnapping.
The Constitution forbids the state from legalizing slavery. When a state legalizes slavery, it violates the Constitution. If a person tries to own slaves, he’s not charged with “Violation of the 13th Amendment.” He’s charged with kidnapping.
Only indirectly.
The 13th Amendment regulates a state’s activity by forbidding legal slavery. The 18th Amendment, when it was effective, gave Congress the power to regulate activity. It did this by passing the Volstead Act.
Well, the 18th Amendment said:
"After one year from the ratification of this article the manufacture, sale, or transportation of intoxicating liquors within, the importation thereof into, or the exportation thereof from the United States and all territory subject to the jurisdiction thereof for beverage purposes is hereby prohibited.
The Congress and the several States shall have concurrent power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation."
So the amendment itself limits private action (the manufacture, sale or transportation of intoxicating liquors). The Volstead Act further defined the prohibition and established the penalty for the violation, but the amendment itself establishes the prohibition. The Volstead Act is just an enforcement act.
Good point. My mistake. I stand by my point on the 13th, but I agree you’re right about the 18th.
The whole premise of that stupid email is misguided. I earn a paycheck too – a very large one – and I DON’T have to take a urine test. And that’s how it should be.
I don’t know anything about law, but the second section of the 21st Amendment apparently reads “The transportation or importation into any State, Territory, or possession of the United States for delivery or use therein of intoxicating liquors, in violation of the laws thereof, is hereby prohibited.” A) What is the purpose of this kind of “Violating the law is hereby prohibited” business? Does it make violations of state law also violations of federal law or something? B) Does this also count as regulation of private behavior by the Constitution?
IANAL, but— being well over 21 and with no criminal history that would bar my freedoms, it is completely legal for me to drink alcohol, dress in cut-off blue jean shorts, and yodel. If however I were to do any or all of these things at work I would be fired. I don’t see this as a violation of my rights, Constitutional or otherwise, and I view drug tests in much the same way.
I could pass any drug test that only screened for illegal or illegally obtained substances. I have little to no problem with pre-employment drug testing so long as it’s consistently applied. Random testing afterward I would find annoying more than anything else, though it’s only been done one place I worked (that ironically being a hotel/restaurant- the LAST place you want to do that- and I think only one person was fired even though half the staff was potheads which made us all wonder ‘WTF?’) but I don’t think it should be illegal.
I know of several private Christian colleges that require employees to give testimonials as to their faith as part of their application and then require them to attend church services afterwards. Should they get divorced or conceive/father a child out of wedlock or something similarly at odds with the university’s moral codes they can be fired (and will absolutely be questioned about it). I couldn’t work for one of these organizations- literally in fact, since I’m an openly gay agnostic, but even if they hired me it would drive me nuts. HOWEVER, I don’t see it as a violation of their employees civil rights so long as these things are known before they go to work there. I put drug testing in the same category.
Except the right for an individual to own slaves was a constitutional right under the Fifth Amendment (Dred Scott v Sanford). So the 13th amendment restricted a previously existing constitutional right and stripped people who owned property in slaves of their property. So that’s a limitation of individual action,.
They’re taking the piss, aren’t they?
It’s bad enough being on welfare, without being denied the use of illicit drugs.
What would you rather do - lock them up as criminals at whatever cost that is per week, or continue giving them a pittance and let them spend it on drugs, as long as nobody but themself is suffering?
The right to own slaves is not explicitly stated in the Constitution, and I don’t think your reading of the Dred Scott case is correct.
To sum up, what the Supreme Court found was not that people had a Fifth Amendment right to own slaves, but that (a) Scott was not a citizen and had no legal standing to bring suit, and that (b) therefore, Scott was property, and could not be taken from his “owner” without due process. The point of the decision was not that people specifically had a right to own slaves but that they had a right to own things in general and if Scott wasn’t a person, he must be property.
If you read the 13th Amendment its intent is clear; it gives Congress the power to pass laws enforcing a ban on slavery. It doesn’t say “hey, white boy, you can’t own slaves,” it says that Congress is allowed to tell you you can’t own slaves.
In what sense has the federal government actively encouraged the private sector to test for drugs? Do drug-free employers get tax breaks? Preferential treatment in awarding of public contracts?
Good for you. Don’t whine about the Constitution when trying to make a point, then; it makes you look stupid, and detracts from your argument. The Constitution is wholly irrelevant here.
Normally, Congress could regulate the transport of liquor across states as part of its power under the Commerce Clause. The 21st amendment says that Congress’s general power does NOT extend to liquor; Congress can’t force a state to permit liquor if it doesn’t want to.
RNATB’s rebuttal is incorporated herein by reference.
I think the idea of drug tests for welfare is idiotic for all sorts of reasons (based on stupid steroetypes, punishes children, targetted at the poor, inefficient, welfare reform act already does plenty to reduce the welfare rolls) but money is fungible and when they get welfare money, that allows them to spend “their own money” on drugs.