Reference no: EM131921268

Module 3 Review Questions

Purpose:

The purpose of this assignment is to emphasizes a different perspective from which to view the law: action taken by the government must come from authority and this authority cannot be exceeded.

Objectives:

1. Analyze whether the Free Exercise Clause

2. Identify when the Statute Does Not Expressly Mention Preemption

3. Define content-neutral laws, injunction, and Commercial Speech

Preparation Instructions:

1. Compose your Review Questions assignment in Microsoft Word or a compatible word processing application.

2. The paper should be formatted and typed using Times New Roman, 12-point font, double-spaced, and one-inch margins (no exceptions).

3. The length of the paper should be at least 4 pages (including the title and references pages).

4. Use APA 6th edition formatting and use a minimum of 2 references.

Content Instructions:

A state legislature enacted a statute that required any motorcycle operator or passenger on the state's highways to wear a protective helmet. Jim Alderman, a licensed motorcycle operator, sued the state to block enforcement of the law.

Alderman asserted that the statute violated the equal protection clause because it placed requirements on motorcyclists that were not imposed
on other motorists. Answer the following questions in short-essay style response.

1. Why does this statute raise equal protection issues instead of substantive due process concerns?

2. What are the three levels of scrutiny that the courts use in determining whether a law violates the equal protection clause?

3. Which standard, or test, of scrutiny would apply to this situation? Why?

4. Applying this standard, or test, is the helmet statute constitutional? Why or why not?

5. Legislation aimed at "protecting people from themselves" concerns the individual as well as the public 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?