1) Why does this statute raise equal protection issues instead of substantive due process concerns?
The statute does not raise substantive due process concerns because it furthers the legitimate government interest in public safety, and, by the standard established in the text, is fair and reasonable in content (is not arbitrary, does not shock the conscience). This statute does raise equal protection issues because the plaintiff has argued that motorcyclists and other motorists are similarly situated individuals who are being treated differently under the law.
2) What are the three levels of scrutiny that the courts use in determining whether or not a law violates the equal protection clause?
The three levels of scrutiny that are used to determine violations of the equal protection clause are Strict scrutiny (used when fundamental rights are being violated), Intermediate scrutiny(used in issues involving gender and legitimacy discrimination) , and the Rational basis test (applied in matters regarding economic and social welfare).
3) Which standard of scrutiny, or test, would apply to this situation? Why?
The rational basis test would be the most applicable to this situation as the primary government interest is social welfare.
4) Applying this standard or test, is the helmet statute constitutional? Why or why not?

Family winemakers of California v. Jenkins
The court begins by referencing the 21st amendment and the substantial level of control it gave to states to regulate alcoholic beverages. and describing the normal means by which states are able to regulate the distribution and sale of alcohol. This establishes the basis from which the Massachusetts legislation deviated.
In the three pages that lead up to this case the authors lay some important groundwork that is key to understanding the details of this case, and ultimately the decision by the courts. The chapter begins with a brief history of United States governance beginning with the confederal system, loosely bound together by the articles of confederation. This system wasn’t working, and one of its chief failures was its inability to regulate commerce between states. At that time States made their own laws regarding commerce policy, often passing laws that inhibited the free flow of commerce, favoring in state businesses.
In the case, two means of distribution are described, one being considered the primary means, and the other being a supplement of significant economic advantage. Prior to 2005, Massachusetts law only allowed in-state wineries to use both methods. In 2005 the U.S. Supreme Court invalidated similar explicitly discriminatory state laws
In response to the problems caused by this type of legislation, and the broader issue of central governance, the delegates drafted the U.S. Constitution. the Family Winemakers of California (Makers…)

Normal means
Groundwork
• Problem: Confederal commerce problem out of state discrimination
Addressed in a few ways by constitution.
• Resolution: Constitutional Privileges and immunities clause
• Commerce clause initially for Commerce in more than one state
• Commerce clause power expansion with Heart of Atlanta Motel. Power over anything the impacts commerce (discrimination)
• Dormant Commerce Clause. States don’t have authority. When ruling on law that does, courts weigh the need vs the burden.

The case, Family Winemakers of California v. Jenkins (Makers…), has been included in this chapter (Constitutional authority to regulate business) because it demonstrates the need for such regulation. At the beginning of the chapter, the authors describe the interstate commerce problems that arose in the preconstitutional confederal system. Many of these problems, which were similar in effect to the present day Massachusetts legislation, were addressed and resolved by the constitution. The trouble is, if a pre-1824 court heard the present day Maker case they would likely deem that the Massachusetts legislation was constitutional, or at least not within their authority to rule on. In this way I think the authors make the point that the constitution The difference is, by establishing the constitution we have a means of addressing and correcting instances of this today.