Difference between revisions of "Rational basis review"

From Conservapedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
 
(4 intermediate revisions by 4 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
−
This page has been withdrawn from Conservapedia as part of a mass removal of content added by [[user:AmesG|Ames]] pursuant to a copyright challenge brought by the same user.  The challenge rests on two grounds:
+
{{discrimlaw}}
−
#Some content was added prior to the institution of Conservapedia's [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Conservapedia:General_disclaimer&oldid=82832 copyright policy] on 2 April 2007, and is now removed by the user's unencumbered and uncontroverted ability to control his own content in the absence of contract or waiver to the contrary.
+
== Basic Doctrine ==
−
#Some content, added after Conservapedia's copyright policy came into effect, is withdrawn under the below reasoning:
+
'''Rational basis review''' is the standard of constitutional review that the judiciary uses to evaluate a legislative classification that does not involve any suspect classifications.  Currently, the only "suspect classifications" are race,<ref>''Brown v. Board of Education''</ref> religion,<ref>''Yick Wo v. Hopkins'' (118 U.S. 356)</ref> national origin,<ref>''Korematsu v. U.S.'' (323 U.S. 214)</ref> and gender.<ref>''U.S. v. Virginia,'' applying intermediate scrutiny</ref> Sexual orientation has been given a quasi-suspect classification.<ref>''Romer v. Evans'', see also ''Lawrence v. Texas''</ref>
  
−
*If Ames supplied content gratuitously, he now revokes it.
+
The doctrine of "rational basis review" suggests that where a government classification, which adversely affects one group, involves no suspect classification against a "discrete & insular minority",<ref>''U.S. v. Carolene Products,'' 304 U.S. 144, footnote 4</ref> supports a legitimate state interest, and is reasonably related to that legitimate interest, the classification passes constitutional muster.<ref>''U.S. v. Carolene Products,'' 304 U.S. 144</ref> Even a state interest that is pretextual will be accepted; this standard of review is ''very'' light, and deferential to the state.
−
*Any waiver executed by the user would have been a contract; however, the professed disclaimer asserts that it is not a contract. Ergo, no waiver was made.
+
 
−
*If the waiver was a contract, it fails for lack of consideration.  No exchange was contemplated or made between the parties; detriment was suffered by user in the loss of copyrighted privileges, time, and effort put into text, but no compensation was received in turn.  If use of the site constitutes compensation, such use was already provided free of charge prior to copyright waiver, and even prior to contribution, and past consideration is no consideration. 
+
Rational basis classifications are largely economic, implicating only the government's [[police powers]].  The distinction between "filled" milk and real milk,<ref>See ''Carolene Products'', supra</ref> is an example of a rational basis classification.
−
*If the waiver was a contract, it was procedurally unconscionable and voidable.  User has no power under the agreement, and a simple contract of adhesion such as this one professes to be is voidable as a matter of public policy.  As voidable, it is now void.
+
 
−
*If the waiver was a contract, and use of the site was acceptance, the contract was breached by Conservapedia.  Conservapedia, by virtue of holding out certain guidelines and "commandments," incorporates these commandments into the the contract.  These "commandments" were breached with regard to users, as user's access to the site was terminated without cause (under the commandments) in May 2007.  Prior to May 2007, user had not violated the commandments.  Having been breached, waiver is inoperative.
+
== Current Events ==
−
*If the waiver was a contract, Conservapedia was unjustly enriched by avowadly valuable material.
+
There is currently some doctrinal confusion on the application of rational basis review to classifications on the basis of sexual orientation.  The cases [[Romer v. Evans]] and [[Lawrence v. Texas]] both appear to apply rational basis review in rejecting classifications on the basis of sexual orientation; they base their decisions on the grounds that the enforcement of neither animus nor morality can be a legitimate state interest.  However, such a momentous holding suggests that the ''real'' standard of review being applied is something higher than rational basis, because disallowing morality as a rational basis would be potentially too far for the current moderate Court.  As a result, it is likely that the Court is using something higher than "rational basis" in evaluating discrimination against homosexuals, but that the Court does not wish to say as much.  The standard of review for sexual orientation cases, then, has been mockingly called "rational basis with teeth," making light of the Court's current confusion.
 +
 
 +
== References ==
 +
<references/>

Latest revision as of 01:41, July 6, 2025

Part of the series on
U.S. Discrimination Law
Const.gif
Standards of Review

Rational basis review
Intermediate scrutiny
Strict scrutiny

Other Legal Theories

Substantive due process
State action doctrine

Defining Moments in Law

The 14th Amendment
Plessy v. Ferguson
Brown v. Board of Education
Loving v. Virginia
U.S. v. Virginia
Romer v. Evans
Lawrence v. Texas

Modalities of Constitutional Law

Textual
Responsive

Basic Doctrine

Rational basis review is the standard of constitutional review that the judiciary uses to evaluate a legislative classification that does not involve any suspect classifications. Currently, the only "suspect classifications" are race,[1] religion,[2] national origin,[3] and gender.[4] Sexual orientation has been given a quasi-suspect classification.[5]

The doctrine of "rational basis review" suggests that where a government classification, which adversely affects one group, involves no suspect classification against a "discrete & insular minority",[6] supports a legitimate state interest, and is reasonably related to that legitimate interest, the classification passes constitutional muster.[7] Even a state interest that is pretextual will be accepted; this standard of review is very light, and deferential to the state.

Rational basis classifications are largely economic, implicating only the government's police powers. The distinction between "filled" milk and real milk,[8] is an example of a rational basis classification.

Current Events

There is currently some doctrinal confusion on the application of rational basis review to classifications on the basis of sexual orientation. The cases Romer v. Evans and Lawrence v. Texas both appear to apply rational basis review in rejecting classifications on the basis of sexual orientation; they base their decisions on the grounds that the enforcement of neither animus nor morality can be a legitimate state interest. However, such a momentous holding suggests that the real standard of review being applied is something higher than rational basis, because disallowing morality as a rational basis would be potentially too far for the current moderate Court. As a result, it is likely that the Court is using something higher than "rational basis" in evaluating discrimination against homosexuals, but that the Court does not wish to say as much. The standard of review for sexual orientation cases, then, has been mockingly called "rational basis with teeth," making light of the Court's current confusion.

References

  1. ↑ Brown v. Board of Education
  2. ↑ Yick Wo v. Hopkins (118 U.S. 356)
  3. ↑ Korematsu v. U.S. (323 U.S. 214)
  4. ↑ U.S. v. Virginia, applying intermediate scrutiny
  5. ↑ Romer v. Evans, see also Lawrence v. Texas
  6. ↑ U.S. v. Carolene Products, 304 U.S. 144, footnote 4
  7. ↑ U.S. v. Carolene Products, 304 U.S. 144
  8. ↑ See Carolene Products, supra
Retrieved from "https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Rational_basis_review&oldid=2139982"