ARBITRARY POLICE POWER

Due process of law, within the meaning of Fourteenth Amendment is secured if laws operate on all alike, and do not subject individual to arbitrary exercise of powers of government. Missouri P. R. Co.v Mackey (1888) 127 US 205, 32 L.Ed 107, 8 S Ct 1161.

Minneapolis & S.L.R. Co. v. Herrick (1888), 127 U.S. 210, 8 S.Ct. 1176; Leeper v. Texas (1891)139 U.S. 462, 11 S.Ct. 577; Giozza v. Tiernan (1893) 148 US 657, 13 S.Ct.721;

Arbitrary

enforcement

and due process of law and the equal protection of the laws are secured if the laws operate on all alike, and do not subject the individual to an arbitrary exercise of the powers of government; Duncan v Missouri 152 U.S. 377, 382  (1894)

These decisions must rest, finally, upon the basis that the requirements of due process were not met because the laws were found arbitrary in their operation and effect. 39 . Nebbia v People of State of New York 291 U.S. 502, 536-37 (1934)

“This constitutional guaranty demands only that the law shall not be unreasonable, arbitrary, or capricious, and that means selected shall have real and substantial relation to the object. Nebbia v People of State of New York, 291 US 502, 54 S.Ct. 505,

Arbitrary

classification

One who assails the classification in such a law must carry the burden of showing that it does not rest upon any reasonable basis, but is essentially arbitrary. Lindsey v Natural Carbonic Gas Co. 220 U.S. 61, 78-79 (1911) 

In his opinion for the Court, Mr. Justice Sutherland fused the two express constitutional restrictions on any state interference with private property - that property shall not be taken without due process nor for a public purpose without just compensation - into a single standard: "[B]efore [a zoning] ordinance can be declared unconstitutional, [it must be shown to be] clearly arbitrary and unreasonable, having no substantial relation to the public health, safety, morals, or general welfare." Moore v East Cleveland 431 U.S. 494, 514 !977)  Village of Euclid, Ohio v Ambler Reality Co. 272 U.S. 365, 395 (1926)

In short, the selection, in order to become obnoxious to the 14th Amendment, must be arbitrary and unreasonable; not merely possibly, but clearly and actually so.  Bachtel v. Wilson 204 U.S. 36, 41 (1907) 

The classification of marijuana as a controlled substance is arbitrary and is not based upon any reasonable ground. No valid reason supported by the facts can be given why, .

The statute was held to create a classification of an arbitrary nature, applicable to large numbers of people, and yet not based upon any reasonable ground. no valid reason could be given why, .Ozan Lumber Co. v. Union County Bank of Liberty, Ind.. 207 U.S. 251, 257 (1907)

…..the challenged regulation as a reasonable exertion of governmental authority or condemn it as arbitrary or discriminatory. Nebbia v People of State of New York, 291 US 502 536  (1934)

Whether this legislation be regarded as a mere exercise of power of regulation, or as a combination of regulation and taxation, the crucial inquiry under the 14th Amendment is whether it clearly appears to be not a fair and reasonable exertion of governmental power, but so extravagant or arbitrary as to constitute an abuse of power. Mountain Timber Co. State Of Washington 243 U.S. 219, 237 (1917)