Reference no: EM132925900

LGL-502-2103 Constitutional Law

Assignment 1

After a rash of automobile deaths, Congress holds a series of hearings about the effectiveness of state seatbelt laws. Much testimony before Congress indicates that although all states require their drivers to wear seatbelts, many states do not effectively enforce these rules. Congress finds that this lax enforcement leads to thousands of the highway deaths each year.

Following the hearings, the House of Representatives passes H.R. 1217, which states:

Section 1: Purpose of this Bill. Congress makes the following findings of fact. A majority of states fail to enforce their own seatbelt regulations, thereby causing significantly more fatalities on interstate highways then there would otherwise be.

This failure to enforce seatbelt legislation has a significant cumulative effect on interstate commerce by making travel on highways more dangerous than it would otherwise be.

Section 2: Requirement of seatbelt use. Any person who operates a motor vehicle on any limited access highway of four or more lanes without approved use of a safety belt shall be subject to a fine of no more than $500.

Section 3: Requirement of enforcement by state authorities. It shall be the responsibility of highway patrol officers of the several states to enforce this legislation. Any highway patrol officer employed by a state that will fully fails to enforce this legislation by failing to issue a summons when appropriate under section 2 shall be subject to a fine of not more than $500.

Section 4. Deprivation of federal highway funds. Any state that is shown by clear and convincing evidence to have failed to enforce the provisions of Section 2 in more than 75% of appropriate cases shall be deprived of 10% of the funding from the United States that would have been allocated to repair and/or build that states highways during the following calendar year. Sections 2 through 4 of this bill are later challenged by individuals and states with appropriate standing. Please answer, using appropriate Supreme Court and/or other case law, the following questions.

1. Is the requirement of seatbelt use set forth in Section 2 within Congress's constitutional authority or should it be struck down as an unconstitutional exercise of authority?

2. Section 3 is challenged on federalism grounds, based on the argument that Congress does not have the authority to force state patrol officers to take actions under the color of state law. Is this argument likely to succeed? This discussion should be a part from any discussion as to whether the underlying seatbelt law under section 2 is valid.

3. Section 4 is also challenged on federalism grounds, based on a similar argument to that expressed against section 3. Is this argument likely to succeed? Please discuss any distinctions that could be made between section 3 and section 4 that may impact the constitutionality of one as opposed to the other.

Assignment 2

The state of East Masshampshire is suffering through a fiscal crisis. Last year, the state ran a budget deficit of $34 billion, which constituted 15% of all state spending. State legislators are concerned that without dramatic reduction in spending, the state will not be able to pay for basic services and debt service on its interest within a couple of years.

Therefore, the state passes a series of austerity regulations to cut spending. Among these regulations are the following:

Section 7. Limitation of healthcare services to United States citizens. Commencing on January 1 of the year following the passage of this bill, no person shall be eligible to receive state subsidized health insurance under any health insurance program administered by the state unless he or she satisfactorily proves that he or she is a citizen of the United States.

Section 12. Residency requirements for eligibility for state programs. No person shall be eligible to participate in any state subsidized benefits program unless he or she satisfactorily proves that he or she has been a resident of the state of East Masshampshire for at least 24 of the 36 months prior to his or her application.

Pedro is a lawful permanent resident in the state of East Masshampshire who was born in Mexico and immigrated to Texas seven years ago. He moved to East Masshampshire only three months ago.

Pedro is considering filing an action in federal court, challenging the regulations above, based on the following arguments:

1) Pedro contends that Section 7 is unconstitutional because it discriminates against him based on his status as a non-US citizen.

2) Pedro also contends that Section 12 is unconstitutional because of its residency requirement. He is not sure exactly what the logic behind this challenge might be, but he has a feeling there may be something challengeable about this provision.

3) Pedro further shows, using a reliable statistical study, that both Section 7 and Section 12 will have a far greater impact on people of Mexican descent then it will on other people, because many people of Mexican descent in the state have recently immigrated to the United States and are not yet citizens. He therefore claims that both rules are a violation of equal protection.

The state of East Masshampshire defends all three challenges by stating that their laws were not intended to discriminate against anybody, but they are merely necessary to balance the state budget, which is a fiscal necessity.

Please analyze all three of Pedro claims based on the equal protection and/or due process clauses of the United States Constitution. Please make sure to use appropriate case law in furthering your arguments.

Assignment 3

A group of people in the state of Nature form a new religion called GreenSpace, which is devoted to connecting with natural spiritually and to preserving nature to the extent possible. This religion carries on for over 50 years and is passed from generation to generation until it has thousands of members.

A tradition develops within the religion of GreenSpace that once every year, during hunting season (May 1 through November 1), adherents dress up in costumes that make them look like deer and roam the forest for an entire eight hour period.

During the seven years since this tradition has started, a total of 12 members of GreenSpace have been accidentally shot by hunters and of these, three have been killed.

Therefore, the state of Nature passes the following law:

Section 1. The purpose of the statute is to prevent GreenSpace members from undertaking actions that are dangerous to themselves and others pursuant to their religious custom.

Section 2. No person shall dress in a costume that causes him or herself to appear as though he or she is a deer between May 1 and November 1 of any calendar year.

In response to this legislation, GreenSpace members organize a massive protest in downtown Nature City on Saturday, May 12. However, when they apply to obtain a permit that would allow them to protest in this manner, their permit application is denied.

After some research, a GreenSpace official finds that the Nature City permit application process gives discretion to the city to deny a permit to protest if, in the judgment of the licensing authority, the demonstration "is likely to seriously inconvenience residents of Nature City." When the GreenSpace asks a government official why they were denied a permit while BlueMan Group was granted a permit after a similar application a month earlier, the official responds "Well, you know, BlueMan Group really isn't so controversial. You guys are extremely controversial and I figured that granting the permit would cause protesters and counter-protesters and would, in general, lead to a massive breach of the peace."

After having been denied a permit, GreenSpace holds a rally in a local park instead. During the rally, Rosa, a GreenSpace spiritual leader announces: "We cannot support any government that continually disallows us our traditions and continually ignores the needs of our environment. We need to seriously think about planning and overthrow of the current regime. If we can do so nonviolently, that is preferable. But if a little violence is necessary to, then so be it."

Issue 1: GreenSpace officials bring an action to declare the statute regarding the deer costumes unconstitutional, because it restricts their free exercise of religion.

GreenSpace argues both that the law was aimed at their religion and that it restricts otherwise legal behavior that they are required to engage in because of their religion. Please analyze and discuss whether the statute is unconstitutional as a violation of GreenSpace members' free exercise of religion.

Issue 2: GreenSpace officials also bring an action to challenge the denial of their permit to protest in downtown Nature City. Nature City officials argue that the permit system is merely a reasonable "time, place and manner" restriction and that their decision should therefore be upheld. Please analyze and discuss whether the permit system as applied in this case is constitutional or is an unconstitutional restriction on GreenSpace's freedom of speech and assembly.

Issue 3: Rosa is arrested and charged with incitement. Assume that her statement, as quoted above, would be considered incitement under the laws of the state of Nature. Rosa argues that her speech is constitutionally protected under the First Amendment. Please analyze and discuss whether she is correct or whether she can be constitutionally charged with incitement.

Attachment:- Constitutional Law.rar