And sometimes laws involve classifications.
Blacks can't vote. Blacks can't marry whites. Essentially, group A is treated differently than group B.
And the court has said, depending on the TYPE of classification, we will give it a closer or quicker look. So if you say, children can't drink, courts say, we'll give that a more cursory, simple look because it's not like people hate children and there's a good reason for it. That's rational basis (is there any rational basis to have this law where there is a classification). That's very easy, bc there is always SOME reason to have a rational basis for anything. So if a court applies a "rational basis" look, the law with the classification is upheld.
But sometimes, courts say, if you use a classification, like race, we're going to apply a higher standard. Courts say, we know there is a history of animosity toward racial minorities in America. And unlike kids who need protection, we know that if you pass a law that says "Blacks can't do X," it's probably because of hatred rather than some legitimate legislative reason. So courts hold, when you classify on race, we are going to be zealous court guardians and apply the HIGHEST, toughest scrutiny on your law. So basically, you can't make distinctions based on race in laws. Because a court will apply its highest, toughest review and strike it down.
------------------------------------
http://www.connexion.org/newsstory.cfm?id=13109&returnurl=index.cfmHe gave a technical legalese explanation earlier and then simplified it for us.