Question

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?

Answer 1

Note-as per Chegg new guidelines, we cannot answer essay-style.

Answer1:

When a law or action limits the freedom of some persons however not others, it's going to violate the equal protection clause. Here, as a result of the law applies solely to bike operators and passengers, it raises equal protection problems.

Answer2:

The 3 levels of scrutiny that courts apply to see whether or not the law or action violates equal protection are strict scrutiny (if elementary rights are at stake), intermediate scrutiny (in cases involving discrimination supported gender or legitimacy), and also the rational basis take a look at (in matters of economic or social welfare).

Answer3:

The court would seemingly apply the rational basis to take a look at. Just like seat-belt laws and speed limits, a statute requiring motorcyclists to wear helmets involves the states conceive to shield the welfare of its voters. Thus, the court would think about the statute as a matter of welfare and need that it's rationally associated with a legitimate government objective.

Answer4:

The statute is perhaps constitutional as a result of requiring helmets is rationally associated with a legitimate government objective (public health and safety). Underneath the rational basis take a look at, courts seldom strike down laws as unconstitutional, and this statute can seemingly any the legitimate state interest of protecting the welfare of voters and promoting safety.

Answer5:

No, people shouldn't be allowed to have interaction in unsafe activities though they favor to do therefore as a result of this could bring chaos to society. The laws and rules in each country are established for the commonweal of the folks. If they favor interacting in unsafe activities, they ought to be rebuked as a result of it'll cause no smart to them and to the folks around them. People ought to follow the principles and laws established to guard them. It’s not there to ban them from what they need however it's for them to be protected. It’s there to guard the overall welfare of the folks.