From: eck@panix.com (Mark Eckenwiler)
Newsgroups: soc.couples,misc.legal
Subject: Re: What a Problem!!!
Date: 4 Oct 92 17:33:15 GMT
Followup-To: misc.legal
Organization: Superseding Information, Inc.

In <1992Oct3.032743.4943@midway.uchicago.edu>, thf2@midway.uchicago.edu sez:
>In article <1992Oct2.140210.4499@desire.wright.edu> demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man) writes:
>>In article <1992Sep30.163147.9706@cbnewsc.cb.att.com>, kapa@cbnewsc.cb.att.com (k.a.perkins) writes:
>>> In article <1ach72INN1em@gw.home.vix.com>, shedevil@vix.com (Anne P. Mitchell JD) writes:

>>> < a law that requires non custodial parents to put children through
>>> college while there is no such law affecting families where parents are
>>> still married to each other >
>>> 
>>>> long said that such a law will be my first constitutional case [i.e. I
>>>> believe that such a law is unconstitutional and must be challenged].
>>> 
>>> Well, it may certainly be an unfair law, but how exactly is it
>>> unconstitutional?  I mean, what part of the constitution does it
>>> violate? 
>>
>>	Equal protection.  It targets one set of parents while others are
>>omitted.  Either all parents must pay for college or none have to.
>>	But telling some of them "yes you do" while others are not told this is
>>clearly unequal treatment.
>
>In my not-a-lawyer state of knowledge, I've seen cases where such laws
>were challenged.  To the best of my recollection, the laws were consistently
>upheld.
>
>But Terry's the equal-protection guru around misc.legal so I'll let him
>explain about suspect classes and the like, 'cuz I'm not going to see
>the stuff until classes this spring.

*Sniff*  I'm hurt.  Deeply.

The flaw in Brett's attempted analysis is that the phrase "equal
protection" by itself is almost meaningless.  The government makes
unfair distinctions all the time: people who live south of 61st Street
in Tulsa get to drive 40 mph legally, while it's 35 and under north of
there.  Why isn't this a basis for a successful suit?  To put it
briefly: "standard of scrutiny".

When making an equal protection claim, you fall into one of three
levels of scrutiny: strict, mid-level, and "rational basis".

Strict scrutiny: the law is invalid unless *necessary* to achieve a
*compelling* governmental interest.  (No law ever survives strict
scrutiny.  Ever.)  Strict scrutiny applies to distinctions directly
affecting fundamental rights -- "people whose names end in 'L' may not
complain publicly about the government" -- and to distinctions based
on race and ethnicity.

Mid-level scrutiny: law is invalid unless *substantially* related to
achieving an *important* government objective.  This degree of
scrutiny applies to gender-based distinctions, such as the ban on
female personnel aboard combat vessels (upheld) and Oklahoma's
different ages -- males, 21; females, 18 -- for purchasing alcoholic
beverages (struck down in _Craig v. Boren_).  [This may also cover
alienage status; I forget whether aliens are protected under strict
scrutiny or mid-level.]

Rational basis: the law need only be *reasonably* related to advancing
a *legitimate* governmental interest.  This standard applies to ALL
CASES NOT COVERED ABOVE, and it is rare indeed for a law to fail this
most lenient test.  The example above concerning Tulsa speed limits is
a "rational basis" scenario that the city wins hands down.


The law summarized above (re parental responsibility for college
costs) sure looks like a rational basis case to these eyes.

-- 
		The sleep of reason begets Limbaughs.

	Mark Eckenwiler    eck@panix.com    ...!cmcl2!panix!eck
From: reykja@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM (Reykja Sigurdsson)
Date: Sun, 27 Sep 1992 05:05:45 GMT
Subject: Re: Making LDR's work.  (LDR = Long Distance Relationship)
Organization: Hewlett-Packard, Fort Collins, CO, USA