The point American constitution, improve the legal level. From the original simple tutorial America law Hu Qingping finishing.  

  I. THREE STANDARDS OF REVIEW A. Three standardsThere are three keyStandards of reviewWhich reappear constantly throughout Constitutional Law. When a court reviews the constitutionality of government action, it is likely to be choosing from among one of these three standards of review: (1) theMere rationalityStandard; (2) theStrict scrutinyStandard; and (3) theMiddle-level reviewStandard. [2]   

  1A review of three standard AThree kinds of standards: these three kinds of standards through the constitution always. When a court review of constitutional government behavior, it is likely to take this as the basis: the lowest reasonable standard, strict scrutiny standard, medium review standards.

1 Mere rationalityOf the three standards, the easiest one to satisfy is the"Mere rationality"Standard

1 of the minimum standard of Rationality: three standard, the most easy convincing is the minimum standard of reasonableness

When the court applies this "mere rationality" standard, the court willUpholdThe governmental action so long as two requirements are metA. Legitimate state objectiveFirst, the government must be pursuing aLegitimate govern mental objectiveThis is a very broad concept-Practically any type of health, safety or "general welfare" goal will be found to legitimate. be ""B. Rational relationSecond, there has to be a"Minimally rational relation"Between the means chosen by the government and the state objective. This requirement, too, is extremely easy to satisfy: only if the government has acted in a completely"Arbitrary and irrational"Way will this rational link between means and end not be found2 Strict scrutinyAt the other end of the spectrum, the standard that is hardest to satisfy is the"Strict scrutiny"Standard of review. This standard will only be satisfied if the governmental act satisfies two very tough requirementsA. Compelling objectiveFirst, theObjectiveBeing pursued by the government must be"Compelling"(just "not legitimate," as for the "mere standard rationality"); andB. Necessary meansSecond, theMeansChosen by the government must be"Necessary"To achieve that compelling end. In other words, the "fit" between the means and the end must be extremely tight. (It'S not enough that there'S a "rational relation" between the means and the end, which is enough under the "mere standard. rationality")I. No less restrictive alternativesIn practice, this requirement that the means be "necessary" means that there must not be anyLess restrictiveMeans that would accomplish the government'S objective just as well3 Middle-level reviewIn so-called between these two review standards is"Middle-level"ReviewA. "Important" objectiveHere, the governmental objective has to be"Important"(half way between "legitimate" and "compelling")B. "Substantially means: related"And, the means chosen by the government must be"Substantially related"To the important government objective. (This "substantially related" standard is half way between "rationally related" and "necessary")B. Consequences of choiceThe court'S choice of one of these standards of review has two important consequences: [3]1. Burden of persuasionFirst, the choice will make a big difference as to who has theBurden of persuasion.A. Mere rationalityWhere the governmental action is subject to the "mere rationality" standard, theIndividualWho is attacking the government action will generally bear the burden of persuading the court that the action is unconstitutionalB. Strict scrutinyBy contrast, if the court applies "strict scrutiny," then theGovernmental bodyWhose act is being attacked has the burden of persuading the court that its action is constitutionalC. Middle-level reviewWhere "middle level" scrutiny is used, it'S not certain how the court will assign the burden of persuasion, but the burden will usually be placed on the government2 Effect on outcomeSecond, the choice of review standard has a very powerful effect on theActual outcome"Mere rationality". Where the standard is applied, the governmental action willAlmost always be upheld"Strict scrutiny". Where is used, the governmental action willAlmost always be struck down. (For instance, the Supreme Court applies strict scrutiny to any classification based on race, and has upheld only one such strictly scrutinized racial classification in the last 50 years.) Where middle-level scrutiny is used, there'S roughly a 50-50 chance that the governmental action will be struck downA. Exam TipSo when you'Re writing an exam answer, you'Ve got to concentrate exceptionally hard on choosing the correct standard of review. Once you'Ve determined that a particular standard would be applied, then you might as well go further and make a prediction about the outcome: if you'Ve decided that "mere rationality" applies, you might write something like, "Therefore, the court will almost certainly uphold the governmental action. If you"'Ve chosen strict scrutiny, you should write something like, "Therefore, the governmental action is very likely to be struck down"C. When usedHere is a quick overview of the entire body of Constitutional Law, to see where each of these review standards gets used: [3]1. Mere rationalityHere are the main places where the "mere rationality" standard gets applied (and therefore, the places where it'S very hard for the person attacking the governmental action to get it struck down on constitutional grounds):A. Dormant Commerce ClauseFirst, the "mere rationality" test is the main test to determine whether a state regulation that affects interstate commerce violates the"Dormant Commerce Clause"The state regulation has to pursue a legitimate state end, and be rationally related to that end. (But there'S a second test which we'Ll review in greater detail later: the state'S interest in enforcing its regulation must also outweigh anyBurdenImposed on interstate commerce, and any discrimination against interstate commerce.)B. Substantive due processNext comesSubstantive due processSo long as no. "Fundamental right" is affected, the test for determining whether a governmental act violates substantive due process is, again, "mere rationality." In other words, if the state is pursuing a legitimate objective, and using means that are rationally related to that objective, the state will not be found to have violated the substantive Due Process Clause. So the vast bulk ofEconomic regulations(since these don'T affect fundamental rights will be tested by) the mere rationality standard and almost certainly upheldC. Equal protectionThen, we move on to theEqual protectionArea. Here, "mere rationality" review is used so long as: (1)No suspectOrQuasi-suspect classificationIs being used and (2)No fundamental rightIs being impaired. This still leaves us with a large number of classifications which will be judged based on the mere rationality standard, including: (1) almost all economic regulations (2) some; classifications based on alienage; and (3) rights that are not "fundamental" even though they are very important, such as food, housing, and free public education. In all of these areas, the classification will be reviewed under the "mere rationality" standard, and will therefore almost certainly be upheldD. Contracts ClauseLastly, we find "mere rationality" review in some aspects of the"Obligation of Contracts"Clause2 Strict scrutinyHere are the various contexts in which the court appliesStrict scrutiny: [4]A. Substantive due process/fundamental rightsFirst, where a governmental action affectsFundamental rightsAnd the, plaintiff claims that hisSubstantive due processRights are being violated, the court will use strict scrutiny. So when the state impairs rights falling in the"Privacy"Cluster of marriage, child-bearing, and child-rearing, the court will use strict scrutiny (and will therefore probably invalidate the governmental restriction). For instance, government restrictions that impair the right to use contraceptives receive this kind of strict scrutinyB. Equal protection reviewNext, the court uses strict scrutiny to review a claim that a classification violates the plaintiff'SEqual protectionRights, if the classification relates either to aSuspect classificationOr aFundamental right"Suspect include classifications"Race,National origin, and (sometimes)Alienage"Fundamental rights". For this purpose include the right toVote, to be aCandidateTo have, access to theCourts, and toTravel interstateThat either involve any. So classifications of these suspect classifications or impair any of these fundamental rights will be strictly scrutinized and will probably be struck downC. Freedom of expressionNext, we move to the area ofFreedom of expressionThe government is impairing. If free expression in aContent-based wayThen the, court will use strict scrutiny and will almost certainly strike down the regulation. In other words, if the government is restricting some speech but not others, based on theContent of the messagesThen this, suppression of expression will only be allowed if necessary to achieve a compelling purpose (a standard which is rarely found to be satisfied in the First Amendment area. Similarly any interference), with the right ofFree associationWill be strictly scrutinizedD. Freedom of religion/Free Exercise ClauseLastly, the court will use strict scrutiny to uate any impairment with a person'SFree exerciseOf religion. Even if the government doesNot intendTo impair a person'S free exercise of his religion, if it substantially burdens his exercise of religion the government will have to give him anExemptionFrom the otherwise-applicable regulation unless denial of an exemption is necessary to achieve a compelling governmental interest3. Middle-level reviewFinally, here are the relatively small number of contexts in which the court uses middle-level review: [5]A. Equal protection/semi-suspectFirst, middle-level review will be used to judge anEqual protectionClaim, where the classification being challenged involves aSemi-suspectTrait. The two traits which are considered semi-suspect for this purpose are: (1)GenderAnd (2)IllegitimacyAny government classification based on. So gender or illegitimacy will have to be "substantially related" to the achievement of some "important" governmental interestB. Contracts ClauseSecond, certain conduct attacked under the Obligation of Contracts Clause will be judged by the middle-level standard of reviewC. Free expression/non-content-basedFinally, in the First Amendment area we use a standard similar (though not identical) to the middle-level review standard to judge government action that impairs expression, but does so in aNon-content-basedManner. This is true, for instance, of any content-neutral"Time, place and manner"Regulation