1. The issue is whether the statute will pass the free speech clause of the Constitution.

Under the free speech clause of the first amendment, the Constitution protects an
individual’s right to free speech by restricting government regulation of private speech. This
applies to the states through the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. This
clause also limits the government from forcing specific types of speech on individuals. Since
free speech is a fundamental right, this statute must pass the strict scrutiny test. Strict scrutiny
means the law can be considered constitutional if the government can prove the action is
necessary to serve a compelling government interest.

Here the government is looking to compel every school student to recite and memorize
the pledge of allegiance. The government’s reasoning is to promote national pride however, this
would fail to justify the high standard of compelling government interest. Perhaps if the nation
was currently at war and needed more national support, the law would be considered more
compelling to satisfy the interest. Here however, the law would not pass the free speech clause
of the constitution.

2. The issue is whether the statute will pass under the establishment clause of the
Constitution.

The establishment clause of the First Amendment prohibits the government from
passing any law regarding the establishment of a religion. This applies to the states through the
Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Supreme Court will only uphold
government action if it 1) has a secular purpose, 2) has a primary effect that neither advances
nor inhibits religion, and 3) does not produce excessive government entanglement with religion.

Here the statute looks to enforce the pledge of allegiance to be recited everyday by
school children. Under the establishment clause, the court will look to see if there is a secular
purpose to this statute. The government's rationale is to promote national pride, therefore it is a
secular goal. Second, will the pledge of allegiance further or inhibit religion? This is subject to
debate due to the words “under God” in the pledge of allegiance. It can be argued that this
phrase looks to advance religion in conjunction with the state. Therefore the statute would fail
this part of the test. Last but not least, the statute does not produce excessive government
entanglement with religion because there is no mention of other religious practices associated
with the statute. However, since the second part of the test is not met, the statute would be in
violation of the establishment clause.

3. The issue is whether the statute will pass under the equal protection clause of the
Constitution.

Under the equal protection clause, the government ensures that everyone is protected
and treated equally under the law. Here the biggest challenge would be to section 3 of the law
that excludes women. Since the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment prohibits
states from unreasonably discriminating against a group of persons. The determination of
"reasonable" depends on the basis of the discrimination and its justification. Here, the basis of
the discrimination is sex. Sex discrimination is subject to an intermediate level of scrutiny.
Discrimination on the basis of sex will not be upheld unless it is substantially related to an
important government interest. In such a case, the government has the burden of showing an
exceedingly persuasive justification for this discrimination.

Here, the challenge that could be made is that the Red Patriot Act discriminates against
women because it provides $500 in tuition assistance to men who register in the draft, while
women are neither required nor permitted to register. While encouraging registration is likely an
important government interest, nothing in the fact pattern shows there is a strong relationship
between discriminating against women and getting men to register for the draft. Here, the
underlying motive is to encourage draft registration and not to discriminate against women.
Therefore, since the underlying motive is not discriminatory, the statute should be upheld under
the rational basis test. Even if the underlying motive is found to be discriminatory, the statute
should still be upheld. This is because it can be argued that ensuring there is a pool of recruits
ready for the military is an important, if not compelling, government interest. By providing the
tuition benefit for men who register for the draft is thus substantially related to achieving that
interest. Therefore, the statute would be valid under the equal protection act of the Fourteen
Amendment.