“So do you endorse the expansive Commerce Clause as being consistent with its original meaning? Yes or No.”
I’m not for trafficking in heroin. It is too damaging to people and society - I doubt any state would allow it to be legal so the question is moot for now.
If it’s ok to make drugs legal, it should be ok for employers to test for it’s use and make employment or continued employment decisions on that basis, among other things. I’m generally libertarian on drugs - if there is a healthy dose of personal responsibility - and of course there never is in a big government environment.
How that fits in with the Commerce Clause, I’m not sure, but forgive me if I don’t ask Chief Justice Roberts for his opinion.
I would think out of respect for the Constitution, you would at least satisfy yourself that a fedgov policy does not violate it before you lend your support.
The same expansive Commerce Clause that authorizes feds to regulate intrastate drug policies, also authorizes feds to control health care, education and the environment. Without it, we wouldn't have Obamacare bearing down on us right now.
So do you endorse the expansive Commerce Clause as being consistent with its original meaning? Yes or No.
As far as I know, employer testing is legal and unchallenged. Do you have reason to think otherwise?