1) Why does this statute raise equal protection issues instead of substantive due process concerns?
The statute does not raise substantive due process concerns because it furthers the legitimate government interest in public safety, and, by the standard established in the text, is fair and reasonable in content (is not arbitrary, does not shock the conscience). This statute does raise equal protection issues because the plaintiff has argued that motorcyclists and other motorists are similarly situated individuals who are being treated differently under the law.
2) What are the three levels of scrutiny that the courts use in determining whether or not a law violates the equal protection ...view middle of the document...
The chapter begins with a brief history of United States governance beginning with the confederal system, loosely bound together by the articles of confederation. This system wasn’t working, and one of its chief failures was its inability to regulate commerce between states. At that time States made their own laws regarding commerce policy, often passing laws that inhibited the free flow of commerce, favoring in state businesses.
In the case, two means of distribution are described, one being considered the primary means, and the other being a supplement of significant economic advantage. Prior to 2005, Massachusetts law only allowed in-state wineries to use both methods. In 2005 the U.S. Supreme Court invalidated similar explicitly discriminatory state laws
In response to the problems caused by this type of legislation, and the broader issue of central governance, the delegates drafted the U.S. Constitution.
the Family Winemakers of California (Makers…)
• Problem: Confederal commerce problem out of state discrimination
Addressed in a few ways by constitution.
• Resolution: Constitutional Privileges and immunities clause