Use the book The Legal environment of business, text and cases 10th edition. thi
ID: 350672 • Letter: U
Question
Use the book The Legal environment of business, text and cases 10th edition. this is chapter 4 on page 86. Help me answer each question please.
Reviewing: Business and the Constitution A state legislature enacted a statute that required any motorcycle operator or passenger on the stateé's highways to wear a protective helmet. Jim Alderman, a licensed motorcycle operator, sued the state to block enforcement of the law. Alder- man asserted that the statute violated the equal protection clause because it placed requirements on motorcyclists that were not imposed on other motoris. Using the information presented in the chapter, answer the following questions y does this statute raise equal protection issues instead of substantive due process concerns? t are the three levels of scrutiny that the courts use in determining whether a law violates the equal 1. Wh 2. What protection clause? 3. Which standard of scrutiny, or test, would apply to this situation? Why? 4. Applying this standard, is the helmet statute constitutional? Why or why not? Debate This. Legislation aimed at "protecting people from themselves" concerns the individual as well as the pub- lic in general. Protective helmet laws are just one example of such legislation. Should individuals be allowed to engage in unsafe activities if they choose to do so?Explanation / Answer
1. Equal protection issues are taken into consideration when the government enact laws that treats individuals situated in same situations differently. On the other hand, substantive due process would be used in cases when some statue would be concerned with only the life or property of a classified group of people or individual.
In this case, the statue enacted by state legislature to wear a protective helmet was only applicable on motorcycle operator or passenger on the state’s highways. Whereas, the statue was not imposed on the other motorists although they were also operating motor vehicles. Therefore, equal protection issues were taken into consideration rather than substantive due concerns.
2. The three levels of scrutiny used by the courts in determining the violation of equal protection clause includes – 1) Strict scrutiny determining whether a particular statue is violating an individual’s fundamental rights, 2) Intermediate scrutiny determining whether there is any discriminations in terms of legitimacy or gender, and 3) rational basis test determining whether there is any particular interest of government in terms of economic welfare or social welfare.
3. In the given case, the rational basis test is more likely to be applied by the court because the legislature to wear protective helmets falls into the social welfare category. The state has enacted the legislature to ensure the welfare and protection of motorcyclists. Hence, the courts would use strict scrutiny test to identify whether there is any violation of equal protection clause.
4. Applying the rational basis test, it can be said that the helmet statue is constitutional, because it serves the state’s interest in protecting the life and welfare of its citizens. Similar to the use of seat belts for motorists, the use of protective helmet for the motorcyclists are for their safety and welfare. Hence, it is concluded that as per the rational basis test, the helmet statue is constitutional.
Related Questions
Navigate
Integrity-first tutoring: explanations and feedback only — we do not complete graded work. Learn more.