The state’s Bar Membership Committee did not grant a recent law graduate’s application to practice law because the graduate refused to answer question two on his bar application. Question two asks each candidate to reveal “[whether] he or she is now or ever has been a member of any subversive organization or any organization advocating unlawful acts.” The recent graduate, who was a member of a radical political organization when he was a college student, refused to answer question two as he did not want this past association to adversely affect his current bar application. Which of the following arguments would be LEAST helpful to the graduate in his suit seeking to have this admission refusal declared unconstitutional?

(A) The admission refusal permanently bars the license of an individual to practice law to persons who were briefly members of such an organization a very long time ago as well as to persons who are presently members.

(B) The admission refusal excludes persons from a valuable state license solely on the basis of action taken by them prior to the recent policy of the bar committee.

(C) The admission refusal forbids a license to practice law to persons who were or are members of such an organization to advance only its lawful purposes as well as persons who were or are members to advance its unlawful purposes.

(D) The wording of question two is vague; as a result, reasonable persons could not accurately ascertain its precise scope.

Answer to be posted tomorrow….