Did the new law forwarded by State of Florida violated the Equal Protection Clause of US Constitution - Essay Example

Essay Question Issue: Did the new law forwarded by of Florida violated the Equal Protection Clause of US Constitution. Rules:-> Is Mr. Herman Sexist is justifiable in claiming that Astrict scrutiny @ test is being violated in the new statute. -> Is the statute valid under the Arational basics @ test as claimed by Florida Women for Special Rights. -> The case to be viewed from two opposite angles. Analysis: According to the Equal Protection Clause “no state shall deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws” In the broadest view, the Equal Protection Clause is part of the United States continuing attempt to determine what its professed commitment to the proposition that "all men are equal" should mean in practice. Mr. Herman Sexist claims that the Florida Law violated the strict scrutiny at test and the Florida Women For special Rights in the response have filed that the staute is valid under the rational basis at test.Strict scrutiny is the highest test or standard of review and is the most difficult for a law to pass.Strict scrutiny is used to consider classifications called suspect.Suspect classifications are race, religion and national origin.If a governmental action uses one of these suspect classifications, the court requires justification that is exceedingly persuasive and demonstrates a compelling state interest.This means there must be a very powerful reason to uphold a law based on one of these classifications. Sex or gender classification has a mixed history with regard to the standard of review used by courts.Courts uses “ rational basis scrutiny” extensively to deal with such types of issues.Rational basis scrutiny is the lowest or the easiest standard for a law to pass.The court uses this test to review laws pertaining to social and economic regulations. The governmental purpose or interest may be referred to as "legitimate."   The means to achieve the interest is reviewed to determine if it is "rationally related" to the accomplishment of the governmental purpose, objective, or interest. Thus we see the case should be considered from different views- two opposite sides. Conclusion: The elimination of the effects of racial or ethnic discrimination is a compelling governmental interest. However, the government needs to prove the existence of the compelling interest which is evidence of the effects of discrimination .The Equal Rights Amendment is necessary to have a clear constitutional guarantee that sex will be considered a suspect classification, entitled to the same strict scrutiny courts reserve for race, religion, and national origin. In this case, it would be wrong to justify Mr. Sexist claims. The law passed by the State of Florida required the Board of Accountancy to certify for licensure any female applicant who received a B or better in Business Law I and Advanced Legal Study at Florida Atlantic University. Herman Sexist received a B in both cases. However, he failed to pass the state licensure examination. Before filing the case he should have looked at the reason why such a law was passed. It was passed not just for giving privilege to women but the state have taken such a decision looking at a bigger vision, this decision would definitely help the fairer sex in progressing in this field and in the long run would benefit the society to a large extent and it’s quite evident that many more such things were considered before passing this law. Essay Question # 2: Issue: What crimes and legal principles to be considered to file charges against guilty persons in all the cases? Rules: -> Different Legal Principles for different crimes -> Punishment for the guilty -> Competent evidences. Analysis: Many crimes were being carried on by Sandy, Sammy, Jamie and Harry. Every single crime done had a different legal action to be taken based on different legal principles. The crimes involved include molesting, murder, robbery, drugs and escaping. There are a set of legal rules which implies the different legal actions to be taken on the persons found guilty of doing any of these activities. A detailed study is highly required in each of the different crime which was taken place and the second major necessity would be competent evidences which could play a major part in proving the identity of the criminals involved .The laws of any country defines different legal actions to be taken on such type of crimes, but here the individuals who have done the various crimes are the same and so each different case has to be handled with proper care and liable punishment should be given. The crimes involved are the major types and so valid and competent evidences play a major role. The decision to be taken should be based on the affect each of the crime had on the innocent victims and at the same time the specific laws related to each crime should also be considered. Proper investigation and a good enquiry into all the matters are a must before arriving at any conclusion or decision. CONCLUSION: As we have already discussed, different legal actions are to be taken for different cases. The first case comes under molestation. There have been two victims involved in this case – the innocent girl who was molested by Harry and the soda vendor who died when his head hit the concrete floor while girl was struggling to escape. Though the soda vendor hit the floor because of the pushing of the girl, still the girl could not be termed as guilty as she was defending herself from being molested and it was just by accident the soda vendor got hurted. In this case Harry could be booked only under the molestation issue. In the second case, the medical reports presented by the doctor prove to be life line for both Sandy and Jamie. Still if the evidences could prove that they had taken or consume cocaine then the case had to be filed against them for drugs taking and the legal action should be taken as per this. The third case involves shop-lifting, a type of robbery. Though Sammy and Harry could not be successful in shop-lifting still if the market manager stands out as an evident in proving them guilty then it would make the charges against them stricter by adding the fine of attempt to robbery. Similar to this is the case which involves Sandy and Jamie who were unsuccessful in doing a crime at the Las Olas Boulevard. Here again, the clerk can prove to be a good witness against them. And there is a case against which Jamie and Sandy could be booked under the charges of threatening and beating an individual. Finally we see the worst of all, in which Sammy accidentally shots dead Harry and escapes from Police. Sammy is now liable to be punished and charged for killing Harry and then escaping from the Police. The guilty people involved had to be charged for all the crimes done and should be punished as per the legal principles of the state. Essay Question # 3 Issue: Are the agreements discussed valid and enforceable on Herbert. Is he liable to all the three parties involved in this? Rules: -> Is the contract between Herbert and Hildegard valid. -> Is the contract between Herbert and Jim valid and enforceable? -> Is Herbert justified in claiming he had a contract with Big Joe and so do not have to repay debt all at once. -> Validity of the contracts basic necessity. Analysis: As per the Law of Contract, there are various requirements which make it valid. There are many such necessities which make a contract valid. However, in this case agreement comes into picture. An agreement is formed when there is an offer made and acceptance to that offer is seen. In all the three cases there are instances reflected whereby an offer was made by a party and the party accepted the offer. However, there were different offerer and offeree in all the instances. As such in the first two instances the response was to the same offer and thus the offerer remained the same i.e., Herbert Dull and the offer was to sell his car and the offerees were Hildegard and Jim. It is to be noted that the dates play an important role in the agreement and it should also be seen if the agreement was in written or oral as written agreement proves to be valid and enforceable unlike orally said things. The other basic requirement for an agreement to become enforceable is the signature depicting the approval of the parties involved. We see the third agreement was an oral one whereas one party says something to the other and approval is based on mutual understandings of both the parties. And if anyone party also steps back then the agreement becomes null and void and could not be enforceable as there will be no proof to make it enforceable or as a matter of fact claims it validity. Conclusion: Different conclusions could be drawn for each agreement. In case of the first agreement between Herbert and Hildegard, it is to be noted that there have been a lots of delay impact on it. Though Hildegard Watson was the first one to accept the offer but this could not be concluded from Herbert’s side because he had received the acceptance letter from Hildegard one day after accepting the acceptance letter from Jim. Although Hildegard had sent a cashier check still Herbert did not get it cashed and so he does not owe any money to Hildegard and is now not liable to any claims from Hildegard. And now when we look at the second agreement i.e., between Herbert and Jim there are other specific things like payment made to consider. Jim could be considered as the first one to accept the offer made by Herbert, and the acceptance was given in written and signed and the other basic details were also mentioned on the form. Moreover after few days Herbert accepted $500 from Jim and had spent $75 from the amount. Though Herbert had changed the delivery date on the agreement form received from Jim still there could be no evidence that could prove that Jim had acknowledge or agreed to it, and now Herbert is liable to either pay back the amount taken from Jim or deliver the car before Jan 15 to Jim. Now when we look at the last instance i.e., the agreement between Herbert and Big Joe, even before looking at further details we can straight away conclude it to be invalid as it was oral and not in written because as per the Law of Contract, an agreement must be written in order to be termed as valid and also to become enforceable. Thus, Herbert cannot claim to pay his debt on a monthly basis to Big Joe. REFERENCES: -> Menikoff Jerry (2002) – Law and Ethics – An Introduction. Georgetown University Press. -> Simpson Alfred W (1987) – A History of the Common Law of Contract. Read More