( C A L B A R7 - l - 3 Q 1 - 3 )
July
2013 California
Bar Examinatron
2l
1 . 1 3 th A me n d me n t'sIn vo luntar ilvSer vitudeClause
T h e 1 3 thA me n d me npt ro h ibits
involuntarser
y vitude
and it it was enactedto
prohibitslaveryin the UnitedStates.Everyonehas the rightto this protection,
have limited
becausethe incarcerated
exceptthosewho are incarcerated
f r e ed o msa n d l i mi te dfu n d a m ental
r ights.The 1OthAmendmentstatesthatany
powersnot delegatedto the UnitedStatesor to Congressare reservedto the
Statesand to the people.StateX can properlyenactthe statute,the State
of the
F o r e stryC o rp s.,so l o n ga s i t com plieswiththe otherr equir ements
c o n sti tu ti o n .
r eliefon
l n t hi sca se ,P e tei s 1 5 a n d his par entshavepr oper lysoughtdeclar ately
W hilePetehas not
h i s b e h a l f.P e te 'sp a re n t'sstandingwill not be questioned.
, dr aftingis im m inentand th e
y e tj o i n e dth e S ta teF o re stryCor ps.( "Cor ps.")his
p o t e n ti ahl a rmca n b e fo re s een.Ther eis a r ipenessissueher e,but sincePete
be sentto the Cor ps.
h a s d ro p p e do u t o f sch o o lh e will inevitably
P e t e'sP a re n tsw i l la rg u eth at by r equir ing
the boysat the Cor psto wor kin order
to repaythe costsassociatedwith providingeducationviolatesthe 13th
Peteto enterthe
, e tenor his par entshavevolunteer ed
A m e n d me n t.In d e e d P
C o r p sa n d w o rk3 h o u rsa d ay.StateX willm ostlikelyar guethatalthough
P e te 'sa tte n d a nce
in the Cor ps.and his ser viceis beingr epaidb y
i n v o l u n ta ry,
The par entswillsay StateX has impr ope r l y
th a t h e i s re ceiving.
t h e e d u ca ti o n
drafteda minorin orderto work and his workwas not approvedby them, his
l e g a lg u a rd i a n s.
S i n ceP e tecomm ittedno cr im eand StateX cannotr equir ehi m
to attendthe Corpsto work,StateX has violatedthe 13thAmendment.As such,
the parentsshouldbe granteddeclaratoryrelief.
2 . D u e P ro ce ssGl a u se
fr omtakinglife,lib er ty ,
T h e D u e P ro ce ssC l a u se(DPC)pr ohibits
the gover nment
Page 1 of 4
(Question2 continued)
CALBAR
?-13
Q1-3)
July
2013
California
Bar
Examinatron
or propertyfrom anyonewithoutdue processof the law.The DPC of the 14th
A m . a l sore co g n i zefu
s n d a mental
r iohtsin whichthe gover nm ent
cannot
interfere,such as a parent'srightto theirraisechildrenin the way they see fit.
In this case,the statutewas basedon a studythe relatesto a boy'sproclivityin
b e c omi n ga cri mi n a lT. h e reis factssuggesting
thatthe boysdr aftedin to the
of minor sis
C o r ps.h a veco mmi tte da n y cr im es.The incar cer ation
C o nsti ti tu ti o n b
au
l ,t th i s re q uir esthateachm inorbe gr antedto the due pr oces s
o f t h e co u rts.P e tei s 1 5 a n d has dr oppedout of school.M er elydr oppingout of
even if Petewas givendue
schooldoes notjustifyany sort of incarceration,
processby the courts.StateX has notifiedPete'sparentsthat they will be
d r a fti n gP e tei n toth e C o rp s.,but StateX has not givenPete' spar entsa hear i ng
o r a ch a n ceto e xp l a i nth e reasonfor his dr oppingout of school.
r ightto r aisePete
F u r th e rmo reS,ta teX h a svi olatedPete' spar ents' fundamental
r ight,the way in
i n t h e w a y th e yse e fi t.Wh i l eeducationis not a fundamental
a par entsis
r ight.Ther efor e,
w h i cha p a re n tra i se sh e r childis a fundamental
a l l o w e dto re fu seto se n dth eirkidsto school,whetherit is public,pr ivate,or
h o mesch o o lA
ther ewas a br eakdownin "per so nal
. l so ,In S ta teX' s per ception,
itselfcan be viewedas a
r e s p o n si b i l iatyn d so ci a lo rd er ."Per sonalr esponsibility
p a r e n ta l -g u i d a ndce
The Par ents
to the gover nm ent.
u ty,n o t a dutyattr ibutable
Petewiththeirchosen"compr ehens i v e
h a ven o t co n se n te d
to S ta teX pr oviding
projects.
education"nor havethey consentedto his workingin the reforestation
r ightto r aisePeteas
T h u s,S ta teX h a s i n fri n g e d
on the par ents' fundamental
they see fit.
withinthe 13th
s
S t a teX w i l la rg u e ,mu chl i kehow it willar guethe statute' validity
interest
Amendment,that the draftingof boyswas an importantgovernmental
( accor ding
. eni f
to the study) Ev
b e ca u sed ro p p i n go u t te n d sto leadto cr im inality
this is true,StateX stillowes Peteand his parentstheirdue processrightsand
StateX must not violatePete'sparentsfundamentalrights.StateX's arguments
Page 2 of 4
(Question2 continued)
( C A L B A R7 - 1 3 Q 1 - 3 )
July
2013 California
Bar Elamination
hi s
a r e n o t stro n ge n o u g hto j u s tifying
depr ivingPeteof hisfr eedomor depr iving
p a r e n tso f th e fu n d a me n tar lightto r aisehim ,mer elybecausePetedr oppedo f
s c h oo l .
r ightsand the
Si n ceS ta teX w i l l mo stl i ke lyviolatePete' spar ents' fundamental
d u e p ro ce sscl a u seo f th e 1 4thAmendmentin dr aftingPete,Pete' spar ents
shouldbe granteddeclaratoryrelief.
3 . E q u a l P ro te cti o nC l a u se
fr om adver sely
T h e E q u a lP ro te cti o C
n l a u s e( EPC)pr ohibits
the gover m ent
a f f ecti n go r fa vo ri n ga p e rsonor gr oupof per sons.In analzingwhethera statute
v i o l a te sth e E P C ,a co u rtw i llapplya scr utinytest basedon the viewof the
are
or requirements
statute.Statuteswhich,on its face, placegenderrestrictions
subjectto intermediate
scrutiny.In orderfor a statuteto be valid,the statute
pur pose.The bur den
gover nment
m u s tb e su b sta n ti a l re
l y l a tedto an im por tant
w i l lbe o l a ce do n th e o o ve rnment
to showthatthe statuteis valid.
The statutein this case is directlyrelatedto boysonly.The Statedwas basedon
a groupof teenagers,butthe statuteitselfonly referredto boys between15 and
18. The StateX Legistlatures
interestwill be basedon the study,which"revealed
a connectionbetweenan increaseddropoutrateand an increaselevelin
in thatthey
c r i m i n aal cti vi ty."
S ta teX w i llar guethattheirinter estis impor tant,
wantedto cut the rateof crimeby controlingthe the connectingfactor.lt must
r elated
a l s osh o w th a tth eb y re q u i r ing
dr opout boysages 15- 18is substantially
to loweringthe crimerate.
r elated"
T h e sta tew i l lp ro b a b l yh a vedifficulty
in pr ovingthatthe "subtantially
aspectof the scrutinytest.The statutewas basedon a study,but the studydoes
n o t in d i ca teth a t i t w a s o n l ygivento boys,nor does it indicatethe agesof the
if the cr im e
b o ys.T h e a g e ra n g ea n d g endercouldbe ar bir tr ar y.
lt is uncer tain
ratewas only in relationto boysor a certainage range.lf the statefailsto show
Page 3 of 4
(Question2 continued)
(CALBAR
7-13
Ql-3)
July
2013
California
Bar
Examination
t h i ssu b ta n ti are
l l a te d n e ss
factor then
,
the statutewillmostlikelybe held
un c o n sti tu ti o n a l .
A s di scu sse dth
, e b u rd e nw illbe on the stateto showthatthestatuteis valid ,
a n d n o t o n P e te 'sp a re n tsto showthatthe statuteis invalid.Sincethe Statew i l l
havedifficultyshowingthat this statutepassedintermediate
scrutiny,a courtwill
f i n dth a tth e sta tu tew a s u n constitutional.
Thus,Pete' spar entsshouldbe gr a nted
d e cl a ra to ry
re l i e fb a se do n the EPC alone.
Page4 of 4