Rational Basis Test Pros And Cons

In this discussion post, I will be addressing prompt A. First, I will cover the rational basis test. The rational basis test is used to decide whether the use of discrimination is lawful in certain cases. The textbook defines the rational basis test as “as long as there’s a reason for treating some people differently that is ‘rationally related to a legitimate government interest,’ the discriminatory act or law or policy is acceptable” (page 155). This means that if there is a reason to not include people for a reason, like not having the qualifications to participate, it is considered lawful. The example that the textbook uses deals with blind people. It explains that “since letting blind people operate cars would be dangerous to others on the road, the law

Within the textbook, the author describes that “intermediate scrutiny was first applied by the Supreme Court in Craig v. Boren (1976) and again in Clark v. Jeter (1988). It requires the government to demonstrate that treating men and women differently is ‘substantially related to an important governmental objective’” (page 155). The test of intermediate scrutiny makes it so that the government is responsible to determine and prove whether or not a law is constitutional due discrimination. Some laws that do discriminate against gender and sex can be upheld if it is in the interest of the government and its objectives. An example of the use of intermediate scrutiny in history is “in the 1980s and 1990s, the courts ruled that states could not operate single-sex institutions of higher education ad that such schools, like South Carolina’s military college the Citadel, must admit both male and female students” (page 155). This means that it was ruled, using intermediate scrutiny, that there was no important governmental objective involved with not admitting women to the military