Weisberg - Spring 2003 Con Law II

Weisberg - Spring 2003 Con Law II - Con. Law II Outline...

Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–3. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
1 Con. Law II Outline Interpretation, Power: Equal Protection Clause: SS: Without a Suppect Class, there is no Strict Scrutiny – will be Mere Rationale Basis. Intermediate (A) Bush v. Gore: (2000)(S.C.) this case involved the use of the Equal Protection Clause (on reverse). Harkens to the Equal Protection Clause (14 th Amendment) of the Constitution because they felt that the recount method of the Florida Supreme Court violate the Right. Questions Before the Court: Majority 1. Were the Votes Counted Fairly by the Florida Supreme Court: Majority by not proscribing a method of recounting, there was no way for the Florida Courts to make an affirmative decision on recounting. a. Each district could have a different standard for counting – they did not set one standard for recount: this was seen as a violation of the equal protection clause – seven justices felt so, but Souter and Breyer felt that the Florida Supreme Court could have come up with an applicable standard. b. Art. II, § 2, Cl.1 (each state shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislatures thereof may direct): The Con. gives the power to the legislature, and in this case, the legislature spoke against Gore, would emphasis this language for Bush. 2. Minority: Steven & Souter: what about the fact that each district already had its own form of vote counting machines with varying degree of accuracy. a. Ginsberg: the S.C. should not have gotten involved in a legitimate State Court interest. _______________________ Mere Rational Basis: (1) This test simply requires that there is some rational relation between the means selected by the legislature and a legitimate legislative objectives. (b) Willaimson v. Lee Optical: (1955) the court upheld an Oklahoma Statute which prevented optricians from fitting eyeglasses lenses into frames without a prescription from a doctor. Holding: the statute was a rational health measure and the legislature might have concluded that in some instances, prescriptions might have been necessary to properly fit frames. This was a hypothetical solution. (c) Railway Express Agency v. New York : (1949) a NY statute prohibited the placing of advertisements on vehicles except that the owner of a vehicle is permitted to advertise his own products. Holding: “It is not a requirement of Equal Protection that all evil of the same genius be eradicated or non at all.” There was a connection and the aim of the legislation. Court Created Reasoning: (d) McDonald v. Board of Education: Voters in jail were determined not to be eligible for absentee ballots. Holding: the legislatures cannot be expected to cure all problems at one time – as long as there is any conceivable basis to justify the statute, it will be upheld.
Background image of page 1

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
2 (e) NY transit v. Beaser: NY did not allow people who used Methedone to work for the subway. Holding:
Background image of page 2
Image of page 3
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Page1 / 34

Weisberg - Spring 2003 Con Law II - Con. Law II Outline...

This preview shows document pages 1 - 3. Sign up to view the full document.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Ask a homework question - tutors are online