IF KING GEORGE HAD TAKEN UP JUSTICE THOMAS' VIEWS

I have had the opportunity lately to consider our Fourth Amendment. At the
recommendation of the superintendent, the Argyle Independent School District
is now performing random drug testing in our high school.

My personal objections to Argyle's drug-testing policies are more practical
than constitutional. If the goal is helping young adults make better
decisions, drug testing seems to have little merit. On the other hand, if
the goal is the appearance of strong executive action or to establish
protection from civil liability, I must assume that drug testing serves that
purpose.

But as I researched the pros and cons of drug testing on the Internet, I
found arguments for and against on the basis of Fourth Amendment
protections. The Fourth Amendment states, "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."

It has been popular lately to portray the Founding Fathers as flawed human
beings, but one of the most remarkable things about the American Revolution
and the U.S. Constitution is the establishment of a government based on
principles; not just effective government or local government, but
government based on what is right and on what is just. (Governing others the
way they wanted to be governed.)

What struck me about the arguments and the Supreme Court's 5-4 decision is
how they reflect a weakening of our national commitment to those principles
and to our ideals as a nation. In writing the majority opinion, Justice
Clarence Thomas stated, "Because this Policy reasonably serves the School
District's important interest in detecting and preventing drug use among its
students, we hold that it is constitutional."

It is unfortunate for England that King George did not have Justice Thomas'
eloquence - we can only imagine what the King's argument would have been.
"Because our Policy serves Great Britain's important interest in detecting
and preventing dissent among its colonists, we hold that it is justified."
Certainly King George had a reasonable cause "to prevent the development of
hazardous conditions" in the colonies, and "to discover such latent or
hidden conditions, or to prevent their development" and that those reasons
were "sufficiently compelling to justify the intrusion on privacy entailed
by conducting such searches without any measure of individualized
suspicion."

It seems to me that our nation's principles are not about circumstances or
rationalization and that the central issue is not whether or not students
have a decreased expectation of privacy at school, but whether or not our
leaders, at all levels of government, have a commitment to the ideals and
principles of our nation.

Randy McKellar, Argyle, Texas