BCOR 3000 1nd Edition Lecture 5 Outline of Last Lecture I. General Approach to Constitutional CasesII. Commerce ClauseIII. Commerce Clause CasesIV. Supremacy ClauseV. Freedom of SpeechVI. Due ProcessOutline of Current Lecture VII. Due Process cont’dVIII. Equal Protection clauseIX. 3 Levels of ScrutinyA. Strict (Race)B. Intermediate (Age/Gender)C. Rational basisX. Privacy RightsCurrent LectureDue Process- Procedural Due Process—deals with right to a trial; hearing before propertyis taken, etc.- 20 days to respond- If excused, have the right to cross examine -- Substantive Due Process: law must be clear enough for a reasonable personto determine its meaning- Some vagueness is OK- Sometimes the law can’t be separated from the substanceThese notes represent a detailed interpretation of the professor’s lecture. GradeBuddy is best used as a supplement to your own notes, not as a substitute.- What’s the purpose?—It may be so vague that the substance makes the process not fair- Trying to do your best to follow laws but vagueness makes it hard to tell what is legal and what is illegal- Examples: vagrancy statues; Montana speed Limit (to vague—declared unconstitutional) and Illinois town anti-gang law- ***The substance can be so unfair (vagueness) that even the best process in the world cannot make it fair. Because unfairness of the law you may still be found guilty even if you tried your very hardest to obey the law.***-Equal Protection Clause- Gov’t must treat similarly situated persons similarly…UNLESS there are legitimate grounds not to.- Ex: Business challenging a statute (law) or an enforcement of a law- “Similarly Situated”: (in-state vs. out-of-state) CU students as a whole are similarly situated; OR not similarly situated because one is in state and one is out of state- 1. An infringement on a right is not automatically unconstitutional- 2. How significant is the infringement?- 3.- Law or action’s purpose is balanced against the distinction- 3 levels of scrutiny (how closely will you examine something)1. Strict: race distinctions (lots of examination)2. Intermediate: age or gender3. Rational Basis: all other distinctions (less examination)Level of Scrutiny: How hard is it to justify the law’s distinction?Race Distinctions- Strict scrutiny applied- Only rarely is a race distinction in the law ok- SOME affirmative action programs ok, but ONLY if certain requirements are met- Requirements: 1.) have to prove you have tried everything else 2.) The problem is still there and 3.) the program I do have is broader than necessary- Ex: Gov’t gives award contracts (minority owned contracts)Age Distinctions- Intermediate Scrutiny- Easier to justify- Age (drinking age, social security, age discrimination act, draft eligibility) Drinking Age: 21+; Reason for Drinking Age: drunk driving statistics, more mature of an adult; development of your brain; immature; It’s not a question about the best law…it’s about are there good reasons to support it Social Security: treats people differently based on age; are there good reason to support this?—yes  Age Discrimination: age discrimination protection to people 40+; aimed at older workers; is 40 a good cut off—no.; there are facts and evidence on older workers so therefore the law has been created Draft Eligibility: Gender Distinctions (and Legitimacy)- Intermediate Scrutiny- Easier to justify- Gender Mandated Insurance Rates: It is legal to charge different rates based on gender as long as there are reasons and statistics to prove and back up the evidence Mandated Health Insurance: laws mandated for prostate cancer check-ups for men, and not for women. Draft Registration: All Other Distinctions- Rational basis—the law will be constitutional if there is any rational basis forthe distinction- Very easy to justify- Examples: Out of State Tuition Liquor Store Sunday closings Car Dealerships Sunday closings Other industry-specific lawPrivacy Rights- ***Constitution does not specifically have a right to privacy.***- Only relatively recently recognized as a constitutional right- Statutory rights to privacy RE the gov’t- Invasion of privacy by individuals?- Protected solely from interpretation on implying one- Protected by statues