This page has been withdrawn from Conservapedia as part {{discrimlaw}}== Basic Doctrine =='''Rational basis review''' is the standard of constitutional review that the judiciary uses to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''Romer v. Evans'', is withdrawn under the below reasoning:see also ''Lawrence v. Texas''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