| Argument |
Maximum
Points |
| Stone (S) argues the rt is nonfund'l-by
analogy to
cases like Michael
H., single parent family is not a trad'l family unit similar to the
nonmarital father in Michael H. |
4
points |
| S argues there is no long tradition of
approval of having
children outside of marriage; this right is not rooted in history and
tradition unlike the traditional nuclear family unit including a mother
and father who are married to each other. |
4 points |
| S argues rt is nonfund'l eco. rt-rt. to
state funding-not rt to decide to have a child |
4 points |
| S agues that even if the right is fund'l,
the law does not impose an Undue Burden on the exercise of the right -
woman not prohibited from having a child, state just refuses to pay,
more expensive to have an
additional child, but not physically impossible, eco burdens not
considered to be undue burdens in Casey |
5
points |
| Standard of review: strict or minimum scrutiny (argue each alternatively)(pts allocated for accurate description of each standard) | 3
points |
| S argues the law satisfies minimum scrutiny
(rat'l
means to legit
end)-discouraging single women who receive ADWC benefits from having
additional children is a legitimate end and refusing to provide more
benefits is a rational means to that end; also lowering state spending
in a fiscal crisis is a legitimate end and cutting ADWC is rationally
related to that legitimate objective |
5
points |
| S argues that even if the right is fund'l,
the law satisfies strict scrutiny (narrowly tailored, least restrictive
alternative means, to accomplishment of compelling governmental
objective) because
the end of discouraging
more children born outside of marriage is just as compelling as the
state’s interest in potential life in Casey and the means are the least
restrictive means available since the law does not prohibit the having
of children only imposes a financial disincentive. |
4
points |
| S can also argue that the law satisfies
strict scrutiny because the need to reduce state spending in light of
the state's
fiscal crisis is a compelling end. While saving money is not usually a
compelling objective, it should be considered compelling in light of
the state's fiscal crisis. In addition, the law is a narrowly tailored,
least restrictive means to
that end because it does not take away any money currently received by
ADWC beneficiaries. It just refuses to give beneficiaries additional
funds if they give birth to additional children. |
4
points |
| Miscellaneous and special level of
understanding of const'al
issues |
2
points |