con law: march 29 2010 class notes

in UT, a man and woman can gain a marriage license but a man and man cannot. 
advocate for these clients, through DPC. 

property interest?
liberty interest? strict scrutiny. the state interest to prevent this would be

(1) naked
(2) bedroom
(3) justice of the peace

criminalizing is the same issue as not allowing marriage license. advocate for this.

1. there is no right to homosexual marriage or explicit right to privacy to this right under the 14th amendment.... don't forget to say the basic, obvious things to a trial judge: there is no doctrine at this point, and so why should we stretch the doctrine now? 
2. arguments on the gov't side: rational relationships (lawrence v. texas); historical basis (glucksberg); traditional values; interests in procreation of future citizens (increase the taxpayer base);

$$ to race: a step row of classifications... which are subject to strict scrutiny?

step 1. rational basis (economics)
step 2. intermediate scrutiny ("quasi-suspect" classes, mainly gender)
step 3. strict scrutiny ("suspect" classes, like race and alienage - FRs)

what's rational basis for the demise of econ claims (lochner)?

usda v. moreno
company wants to sell advertising on the side of the truck. nyc says that they don't want that for safety reasons, etc.
court has a self-restraint assumption on the truck owners.
justice black in his opinion is writing in the quality of a dissent: the court won't read in an economic right in regards to post-lochner. but this law is under-inclusive.
justice jackson says that EPC is all or nothing: the EPC does not have a problem of disabling/precluding the gov't the way that DPC does.
what does the EPC do? for a successful EPC claim, the court will just ensure that the gov't is regulating in the correct way.... in this case, don't under-include, just reform the statute so that it regulates more fairly.

usrr v. fritz
union self-protection scam that congress is not aware of until the legislation is passed.
the plaintiff's say that the inbalance denies them equal protection.
moving from actual to theoretical motivation: congress may have wanted to ensure that people who really applied themselves to the railroad profession are compensated, as opposed to people whose lives brought them through some railroad employment at some time.