Full access allows:
- Solve all tests online without limits;
- Remove all advertisements on website;
- Adding questions to favorite list;
- Save learning progress;
- Save results of practice exams;
- Watching all wrong answered questions.
Shortly before the law's enactment, when the state did not require certification of ski instructors, a woman moved to the state intending to find employment as a ski instructor. The woman had been a ski instructor in another state for many years. But since her move, even though ski resorts in the state have found her to be highly qualified, no resort will offer her a contract for employment as a ski instructor because she has not received the required state certification.
A state in which several popular ski resorts are located has enacted a law requiring state certification of ski instructors. Under the law, applicants for certification must attend a monthlong course, pass a test, and pay a fee of $1,000. The stated purpose of the law is to «promote uniformity in the methods of ski instruction at the state's ski areas.»
There are no comments at the moment. If you found an error or think question is incorrect, tell everyone about it
Only signed in users can write comments
Signin
A is incorrect. As stated above, the state certification is not a violation of the Contracts Clause because no contract has been made. The woman's ability to contract for employment is being impaired as she has to take a course, pass a test, and pay a fee of $1,000.
C is incorrect. There is no violation of the Contracts Clause here because there is no established contract. Therefore, there is no need for further analysis into the legitimacy of the government interest.
D is incorrect. There is no violation of the Contracts Clause in the absence of a contract, and therefore, the analysis should end there. It is not necessary to determine whether the requirement amounts to an important government objective.