Difference between revisions of "Rational basis review"

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search
(New page: '''Rational basis review''' is the standard of constitutional review that the judiciary uses to evaluate a legislative classification which does not involve any suspect classifications...)
 
Line 1: Line 1:
'''Rational basis review''' is the standard of constitutional review that the judiciary uses to evaluate a legislative classification which 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> gender,<ref>''U.S. v. Virginia,'' applying intermediate scrutiny</ref> and (possibly) sexual orientation.<ref>''Romer v. Evans'', see also ''Lawrence v. Texas''</ref>
+
'''Rational basis review''' is the standard of constitutional review that the judiciary uses to evaluate a legislative classification which 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>
  
 
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>
 
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>

Revision as of 10:37, 26 April 2007

Rational basis review is the standard of constitutional review that the judiciary uses to evaluate a legislative classification which 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]

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.

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