Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Jay Madham
That's not what strict scrutiny means. Here are a few links which discuss strict scrutiny.

http://definitions.uslegal.com/s/strict-scrutiny/

http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/epcscrutiny.htm

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Strict+Scrutiny

From the last link:


The strict scrutiny standard of judicial review is based on the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Federal courts use strict scrutiny to determine whether certain types of government policies are constitutional. The U.S. Supreme Court has applied this standard to laws or policies that impinge on a right explicitly protected by the U.S. Constitution, such as the right to vote. The Court has also identified certain rights that it deems to be fundamental rights, even though they are not enumerated in the Constitution.

The strict scrutiny standard is one of three employed by the courts in reviewing laws and government policies. The rational basis test is the lowest form of judicial scrutiny. It is used in cases where a plaintiff alleges that the legislature has made an Arbitrary or irrational decision. When employed, the Rational Basis Test usually results in a court upholding the constitutionality of the law, because the test gives great deference to the legislative branch. The heightened scrutiny test is used in cases involving matters of discrimination based on sex. As articulated in Craig v. Boren, 429 U.S. 190, 97 S. Ct. 451, 50 L. Ed. 2d 397 (1976), “classifications by gender must serve important governmental objectives and must be substantially related to the achievement of those objectives.”

Strict scrutiny is the most rigorous form of judicial review. The Supreme Court has identified the right to vote, the right to travel, and the right to privacy as fundamental rights worthy of protection by strict scrutiny. In addition, laws and policies that discriminate on the basis of race are categorized as suspect classifications that are presumptively impermissible and subject to strict scrutiny.

Once a court determines that strict scrutiny must be applied, it is presumed that the law or policy is unconstitutional. The government has the burden of proving that its challenged policy is constitutional. To withstand strict scrutiny, the government must show that its policy is necessary to achieve a compelling state interest. If this is proved, the state must then demonstrate that the legislation is narrowly tailored to achieve the intended result.


Since the second amendment is now “officially” an individual right protected by the Constitution. It would seem that strict scrutiny is the only appropriate standard.

98 posted on 06/27/2008 4:26:12 PM PDT by El Gato ("The Second Amendment is the RESET button of the United States Constitution." -- Doug McKay)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 79 | View Replies ]


To: El Gato

Since I got no challenge from you, it seems you agree with me. We got strict scrutiny with Heller. Hallelujah! I’m still stunned by Ginsburg and Souter’s retreat from Muscarello. Thanks for the links.


100 posted on 06/27/2008 4:54:42 PM PDT by neverdem (I'm praying for a Divine Intervention.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 98 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson