Strict Scrutiny and Constitutional Review

The video explains the concept of constitutional review, focusing on the highest standard of review applied to laws affecting fundamental rights under the US Constitution. It discusses the application of this standard in due process cases and cases involving suspect classifications. The video outlines the need for a compelling justification for laws, emphasizing that they must be narrowly tailored and the least restrictive means of achieving their objectives. It concludes by highlighting the high burden of proof required under strict scrutiny, often leading to laws being deemed unconstitutional and subject to appellate review.

What is the primary focus of constitutional review?

• To review laws affecting fundamental rights

• To assess the political implications of a law

• To evaluate the economic impact of a law

• To analyze the environmental effects of a law

Under strict scrutiny, what must lawmakers demonstrate about a law?

• It is easy to implement

• It is cost-effective

• It has a compelling justification

• It is popular among citizens

What does it mean for a law to be 'narrowly tailored'?

• It should be specific and focused

• It should be flexible and adaptable

• It should be vague and open-ended

• It should be broad and inclusive

Why might a law be considered unconstitutional under strict scrutiny?

• It is too expensive to enforce

• It is not widely known

• It lacks a compelling justification

• It is supported by a minority group

What often happens to laws that fail to meet the strict scrutiny standard?

• They are subject to significant appellate review

• They are enforced without changes

• They are automatically repealed

• They are ignored by the courts