Reply #3: I see she's still going ahead with the proposed legislation. [View All]

[no_hypocrisy]

If there's no factual background to prove the testing is necessary in order for indigent citizens to survive, I wonder if the law could survive a0 Fourth Amendment challenge of "unreasonable search" or whether it would survive the defense of the Commerce Clause where legislatures can enact laws that are "necessary and proper" to legitimate goals that have a "rational basis". (The evolving level of scrutiny applied by Federal courts to Commerce Clause cases should be considered in the context of rational basis review. The idea behind rational basis review is that the judiciary must show deference to the elected representatives of the people. A respect for the democratic process requires that the Courts uphold legislation if there are rational facts and reasons that could support Congressional judgment, even if the Justices would come to different conclusions.)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commerce_Clause#Rational_basis_review

My question is how much or how little evidence of negligible drug use among welfare/food stamp recipients in South Carolina would be necessary to uphold this proposed legislation?