Good Example Of Adarand V. Pena Essay

The constitutional issue raised in Adarand litigation is the racial classification of the citizens meant to allow for preferential treatment. In the past, the minority groups had been treated unfairly when it came to employment. Programs had to be implemented to amend the unfair treatment of the minority in the workplace.
The affirmative program had to meet the particular qualification to be considered constitutional. It had to meet compelling government interest and pass the test of scrutiny. To apply strict scrutiny, the legislature must pass a law involving open specification, which includes race, nationality, religion, and origin.
The decision of the court for Adarand was correct it is unjust to give preferences to the minority in bidding. Disadvantaged business enterprises were selected. Such illegal to the other companies that would be at the losing end. The best thing was to put measures in place ensuring that all individuals regardless of race or gender work on the same platform.
Justice Stevens and Ginsberg were of the opinion that intermediate scrutiny should be upheld. Stevens, however, disagreed with Thomas argument that all discrimination was similar in principle. Scouter, Stevens and Ginsberg all held contrary opinions to that of Scalia in relations to the affirmative action. I completely agree with Justice Thomas there is no difference between a law passed to subjugate a race, and a law passed to give benefits.
The affirmative action program in federal highway contracts was unconstitutional. The program created an excuse for the disadvantaged business enterprises to place bids above their competitors. The federal money also set aside created a financial gap.
The system created a loophole this is because it allowed for the economically disadvantaged individual to qualify for business as a DBE. The current system seems unfair and needs to be updated to account for the gap created by the system.