norml22 - Page 11

 (1986); _/l__/l_oniQ_L___Id_D__Sc_QQl_Di _ _ v "__ s 411
 U.S. Ig 93 SoCt. 1278, 36 L.Ed.2d 16 (1973); _aDir m ,
 394 U.S. 618, 89 S_Ct. 1322, 22 L.Ed.2d 600 (1969);
 _j_chardso_, 403 U.S. 365, 371, 91 SoCt. 1848, 29 L.Ed_2d 534
 (19vi)
 The next level of review is B'intermediate scrutiny." This
 level of review is applicable when a determination must be made
 as to whether the classification scheme included in the law must
 _'fairly be viewed as furthering a substantial interest of the
 state. '_ See P_l_r__v, __Q__ 457 U.So 202, 217-18, 102 S.Ct° 2382,
 2395 (1982)o Under this standard, while the law may not appear
 on its face to involve an invidious classification, it will be
 subject to review _'if it gives rise to recurring constitutional
 difficulties." /_ In all other circumstances, the Court
 has applied the _rational relationship _ test:
 Under traditional equal protection analysis,
 a legislation classification must be
 sustained if the classification itself is
 rationally related to a legitimate
 governmental interest_
 ikL_____ates De_p___Q_kg_ricult_l_e_t. Mor_ID_q, 413 U.S. 528, 533,
 93 S.Ct. 2S21, 37 LoEd.2d 782 (1973).
 For the purposes of this motion, the accused will concede
 arguendo that the proper standard for constitutional review of
 his Fifth Amendment claims to due process and equal protection of
 the laws is the '_rational relationship '_ test.
 An act of the legislature carries a presumption of validity
 and will be upheld unless it is demonstrated to be irrational.
 lO