Is the Governator's new law Constitutional?

Question

I'm not an expert, but is it Constitutional to pass a law banning teens from using cell phones while driving without banning other people? I know teens can't buy cigarettes like adults, so is it a similar situation? I'm really not sure so any input would be greatly appreciated.

I'm neither for nor against the law, I was just curious. My question had nothing to do with driving so much as passing a law which punishes one group of people for an action while permitting the action by another group.

Answer 1

Age discrimination is allowed in many contexts where discrimination based on race, gender, religion, etc. would not be.

My guess is that a law prohibiting minors from doing this would be constitutional.

Interesting question!

Answer 2

Yes, it's Constitutional.

First of all, neither driving nor cell phones are a Constitutional right.

It doesn't prohibit teens driving or using cell phones, just the combination of the two. There's a valid reason for the ban of the combination, and that's because they can show a higher likelihood of teens to kill themselves and others while doing so than people with more experience driving.

Answer 3

As long as a law does not infringe on a fundamental right (freedom of speech, etc.) or discriminate on the basis of race, ethnicity, gender, etc., the law is constitutional as long as there is a rational basis for the law.

Rational basis means that the law advances a conceivable, legitimate government interest, and does so by rational means.

The government has a legitimate interest in preventing automobile accidents. Restricting cellphone use among teen drivers is a rational way to reduce automobile accidents.

The law does not need to be the best way to achieve a particular goal, nor does it need to be all-inclusive to be considered constitutional.

As you can guess, a law that falls under the rational basis review is rarely declared unconstitutional. The law would need to serve no conveivable, legitimate government purpose, or use completely irrational means to attempt to achieve a legitimate purpose, to be unconstitutional.

Answer 4

1) It is not the Governator's law. It was passed by the California House and Senate and signed by the Governor. 2) There is no constitutional right to use a cell phone while driving. 3) There is no constitutional right to drive!

Answer 5

Yes, it is constitutional. What you obviously haven't read is the statistics that were cited to get this law passed. Check Yahoo news. I agree that cell's should be illegal to use while driving by anyone.

Answer 6

It says nothing about age discrimination in the constitution so i am guessing it is constitutional... it is still unfair no matter what age you are it is dangerous. most acidents happen with other drivers besides teens anyway so it should be banned from everyone