320 Years of History
Gold Member
Rights, like privileges, can and should be taken away when one (or many) fails to exercise the utmost responsibility in the exercise of that right and all that pertains to it. Individuals who reach the age of majority have the right to vote, but they lose that right while they are incarcerated for committing a felony.
This is where I think you are going in the wrong direction: (from Wikipedia)
U.S. courts apply the strict scrutiny standard in two contexts: when a fundamental constitutional right is infringed,[1] particularly those found in the Bill of Rights and those the court has deemed a fundamental right protected by the Due Process Clause or "liberty clause" of the 14th Amendment, or when a government action applies to a "suspect classification," such as race or national origin.
To pass strict scrutiny, the law or policy must satisfy three tests:
It must be justified by a compelling governmental interest. While the Courts have never brightly defined how to determine if an interest is compelling, the concept generally refers to something necessary or crucial, as opposed to something merely preferred. Examples include national security, preserving the lives of multiple individuals, and not violating explicit constitutional protections.
The law or policy must be narrowly tailored to achieve that goal or interest. If the government action encompasses too much (overbroad) or fails to address essential aspects of the compelling interest, then the rule is not considered narrowly tailored.
The law or policy must be the least restrictive means for achieving that interest. That is, there cannot be a less restrictive way to effectively achieve the compelling government interest. The test will be met even if there is another method that is equally the least restrictive. Some legal scholars consider this "least restrictive means" requirement part of being narrowly tailored, though the Court generally evaluates it separately.
This means the burden of restricting a fundamental right is on the government; the individual has no duty to prove anything.
I think I understand the "strict scrutiny" standard; however, that is one of six principles that underpin the proposal I made. I wouldn't alter the proposal even were I to not see that principle as being part of what underpins the proposal. I don't understand then how that one driving principle corresponds to the "strict scrutiny" standard insofar as the principle is nothing more than my saying that it's a principle I have and one that I applied/considered in developing the proposal.