Supreme Court Threat to Bill of Rights

The US Supreme Court ruled on June 27, 2002 that the Fourth Amendment does not protect public school students from random drug testing requirements. The case involved an Oklahoma honor student who challenged her school's power to test students for drugs without probable cause. A majority of the justices, led by Clarence Thomas, decided that the interest of the state in combating drug abuse is sufficiently "compelling" to justify an exception to the Fourth Amendment requirement for a warrant, supported by probable cause.

When I read that, I had to wonder whether the justices were talking about the same Constitution and the same Fourth Amendment that I'm familiar with. Here's the text of the Fourth Amendment that I've come to know, love and respect: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

I studied this text backward and forward, but I simply cannot find a provision for any exceptions anywhere in that short paragraph. The Bill of Rights doesn't include any exceptions, and it doesn't provide a procedure (other than the amendment process) for creating exceptions.

The declaration of civil rights with exceptions did sound familiar, though. Just to be sure I wasn't missing something, I did a little checking. Lo and behold, I did find a couple of documents that specified civil rights with exceptions.

The first document I found was the UN Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. This one is replete with declarations like the following: "The right of peaceful assembly shall be recognized. No restriction may be placed on the exercise of this right other than those imposed in conformity with the law." Here, and in many other cases, the UN claims to guarantee rights in one sentence, then allows for exceptions in the very next sentence. This is entirely alien to the spirit of our Constitution, which recognizes our pre-existing rights without providing a means for government to trump those rights.

A document with a similar approach is the old Soviet constitution. Again, it is filled with high-sounding declarations of respect for rights. "Freedom to manifest one's religion or beliefs…" sounds promising.

Unfortunately, the sentence continues with "…may be subject only to such limitations as are prescribed by law and are necessary to protect public safety, order, health, or morals or the fundamental rights and freedoms of others." Again, the rights are subject to exceptions at the convenience of the state.

To read a warrantless drug testing exception into the text of the Fourth Amendment is to lower our Constitution to the level of the propaganda declarations of the UN and the Soviet Union. It leaves the door open to create exceptions to accommodate any other perceived governmental need.

Today the war on drugs, tomorrow the war on terrorism, tobacco, or cholesterol may provide the basis for deviation from the plain words of the Bill of Rights. Today the Fourth Amendment, tomorrow the First, Second, or Fifth.

Americans must regain control of our runaway federal judiciary before the entire Constitution has been explained away.