Skylar
Diamond Member
- Jul 5, 2014
- 54,242
- 16,467
- 2,250
Remember, the 'compelling government interest' angle is a losing legal argument, created to limit government action. Not expand it.
That's how you have characterized it, but that's not how it's used. The 'compelling interest' excuse is invoked to accommodate the government regulating behavior in ways that would otherwise be unconstitutional. It's used to justify the exercise of government power, not limit it. It's seem odd that you're trying to invert it. What's your angle?
I'm citing 'compelling government interest' as it was actually recognized: As a limit to government power, one of a checklist of conditions that had to be met before rights be significantly regulated by the State. Other such requirements would be that the measure was the absolute least interference with rights plausibly possible to reach that legitimate purpose of 'compelling government interest'.
If a State is tapping 'compelling government interest', they're hitting the wall of the Strict Scrutiny test. A test the States overwhelmingly fail. States when arguing 'compelling government interest' are trying to convince a judge that their laws meet the Strict Scrutiny standards. Generally regarded as one of the strictest, most difficult to satisfy standards in all of law.
The standard exists to limit state power.
'Strict Scrutiny' exists to limit state power. 'Compelling Interest' is one of its exceptions - one of the ways government can get around strict limits on power. Again, I'm curious why you're claiming otherwise. How do you think it changes the debate?
No more so than 'probable cause'. The Compelling interest is a standard that the State had to meet. Before Compelling Interest......there was 'whatever the fuck the state wanted to do'. Now they are limited to necessary and crutial interests rather than mere preferences.
And Compelling Interest is a standard of Strict Scrutiny. Compelling interest isn't an 'exception' to Strict Scrutiny. Its the application of it.