In order to define whether a statute is constitutional or not, it is critical to work out the criteria that it is supposed to match. Thus, Nick Howard (2013) suggests regarding a constitutional statute as “one which conditions the legal relationships between citizens and state in some general, overarching manner” (p.83). Even though the relevant definition does not cover all the specific aspects of the examined concept, it still provides the general framework for its determination. Daniel Hall and John Feldmeier also point out the significance of the rule of law that can be achieved in case the legal system includes the following elements: the law is fundamental, it limits governmental authority, and it is enforceable by citizens (Hall & Feldmeier, 2016). Therefore, any statute is to be regarded in the indicated framework.
On the face of it, the statute under discussion is constitutional. In the meantime, a closer consideration of all the points it includes shows that some particular areas make this statute unconstitutional.
First, and foremost, the establishment of the Federal Traffic Police Administration has a problematic aspect. According to the traffic law, the relevant organization is supposed to be the source of all traffic laws and law enforcement on all roads, paved and unpaved in the United States. However, the category of unpaved roads cannot be included in regulating laws as this kind of roads can be private paths or any unpaved roads. The ambiguity at this point might provoke the implementation of unconstitutional laws and regulation acts that can violate some of the general rights implicitly or explicitly protected by the Constitution, such as, for example, the freedom of movement (Hall & Feldmeier, 2016).
Another critical aspect that challenges the constitutionality of the analyzed statute is connected with the establishment of the system of Federal Traffic Tribunals. Hence according to the law, the judges of the tribunal, which will have exclusive jurisdiction over all the traffic violation charges in the US, should be appointed by the Attorney General and can be removed by the Attorney General without cause. The relevant aspect contradicts with the principle of the separation of power which is critical for constitutional law formation. It is assumed that a single person should not receive complete juridical power as it might lead to unfair verdicts and decisions (Hall & Feldmeier, 2016). In other words, the fact that the Attorney General will have a privilege of employing and firing judges means that the latter will experience strong psychological impact, which is likely to have a negative impact on their decisions.
Finally, the second traffic law has another aspect that contradicts the basic constitutional principles. The relevant law states that all traffic offenses are characterized as criminal. It means that a person who is in charge of any traffic offense is essentially treated as a criminal. The relevant statute violates the presumption of innocence, and the right of defense included in the constitution (Hall & Feldmeier, 2016). In other words, every person has a right for a fair juridical procedure until his or her offense is proved to be criminal.
As a result, a critical analysis of the statute under discussion has shown that some of its aspects contradict with the constitutional basis as it violates such critical human rights as a right for movement and defense, to name but a few. Therefore, the relevant law can be referred to unconstitutional.
Reference List
Hall, D.J., & Feldmeier, J (2016). Constitutional Law: Governmental Powers and Individual Freedoms. New York, New York: Pearson Education.
Howard, N. (2013). Beginning Constitutional Law. New York, New York: Routledge.