the opportunity to pursue employment and therefore found the county’s ability to restrict employment to be nearly unfettered. Having concluded that the opportunity to pursue employment is a fundamental right as a necessary incident to the fundamental right to pursue life’s basic necessities, we must next determine the level of scrutiny to apply to the infringement of that right. In determining what level of scrutiny to apply to legislation or to a rule in question, we first determine what rights are involved. Eastman v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (1989), 237 Mont. 332, 337, 777 P.2d 862, 865. “The extent to which the Court’s scrutiny is heightened depends both on the nature of the interest and the degree to which it is infringed.” Memorial Hospital, 415 U.S. at 254-56, 94 S.Ct. at 1080-81 (<HOLDING>); Laurence H. Tribe, American Constitutional
recognizing that  the interstate nexus requirement is satisfied by proof of a probable or potential impact on interstate commerce holding after lopez that the interstate nexus element of the hobbs act still requires the government to show only a minimal connection to interstate commerce holding that a classification unconstitutionally penalized persons who exercised their right to interstate migration holding that the fourteenth amendment does not secure to persons the right to prevent disclosure of their arrest holding that states are persons but conceding that this change was not envisioned as broadening the class of persons who could be held liable under the act