norml22 - Page 13
Page 13
Previous ,
Next ,
Original Image
Return to Index
We recognize that the constitutionality of a
statute, valid on its face may be assailed by
proof of facts tending to show that the
statute as applied to a particular article is
without support in reason because the
article, although within the prohibited
class_ is so different from others of the
class as to be without the reasons for the
prohibition°
There is ample precedent for the accused to demonstrate
through expert testimony and empirical evidence that the statute
as applied to marijuana is without support in reason because the
articles although within the prohibited class_ is so different
from others of the class as to be without the reason for the
prohibition, in _dll/_er v. Or_g_Q_f 208 U_S. 412_ 28 SeCt. 324, 52
L.Ed. 551 (1908)_ the first "Brandeis brief" cases the Court was
presented with a challenge to a statute which imposed a
limitation on the hours women might works but which did not also
apply to men. Significant!y_ the Court examined a great deal of
factual material as to the actual effect of "protective _' work
legislation for women_ Based on the date presented, the Court
upheld the statute. In Brg__ vL/_Qar_d_f_on_ 347 U.S.
4S3, 74 S.Ct_ 686_ 98 L.Edo 873 (1954)_ the Court granted relief
based upon extensive empirical data regarding the psychological
effects on black children of segregated education° The Court
stated:
The effect of this separation on their
educational opportunities was well stated by
a finding (in the lower court) in the Kansas
case o _ o: _Segregation of white and colored
children in public schools has a detrimental
effect upon the colored children. The impact
is greater when it has the sanction of the
law; for the policy of separating the races
12
Previous ,
Next ,
Return to Index