Reformulating the Motive/Effects Debate in Constitutional AdjudicationWayne Law Review (1986)
AbstractDespite all the argument about whether the courts should employ a motive or an impact test, the motive test is fundamentally ambiguous and covers a variety of different degrees of scrutiny which correspond to the rational basis, intermediate and strict scrutiny tests. This becomes apparent once one examines the evidence necessary to show discrimination and the excuses for it and compares both to constitutional duties. Motive has been the camouflage behind which the strict scrutiny test for racial distinctions has been transmogrified into minimal scrutiny of government behavior.
- discriminatory impact,
- discriminatory treatment,
- constitutional law,
- tiers of scrutiny
Citation InformationStephen E. Gottlieb. "Reformulating the Motive/Effects Debate in Constitutional Adjudication" Wayne Law Review Vol. 33 (1986)
Available at: http://works.bepress.com/stephen_gottlieb/17/