As a result, the agency decided to prohibit the company from participating in the bidding process and therefore terminated the possibility of contracting with the company at all. The company made a political contribution to an interest group whose interests were adverse to the current administration. Although representatives from the agency and the company would meet to discuss and negotiate contracts for the upcoming year every January, each individual renovation project was covered by a separate contract. The agency properly chose to contract with the company following a federally mandated competitive bidding process. Of the following reasons, which best supports the rejection of the driver's constitutional challenge?įor years, a federal agency regularly contracted with a construction company to perform renovations on federal government buildings within a state. The driver has challenged the judicial refusal to admit him into driving school as a violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Based on this reasoning, the judge denied the driver's request solely because he did not qualify for driving school due to his age. The court program offering driving school in lieu of fine was rationally limited to drivers between the ages of 15 and 18 years old because they were the most likely to modify their driving habits and thereby benefit from the school. He requested that, in lieu of paying a fine, he be required to attend the driving school course that was offered by the municipal court for certain traffic offenses. He pled not guilty and requested a trial, at which he was found guilty. A 60-year-old driver received a traffic citation for his failure to use the headlights on his automobile after dark.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |