constitutional-law legal-terms
Are there laws serving a compelling government interest that create neither rights nor duties?
<p>There are laws, such as proclamations enacted for symbolic reasons, etc., that neither require nor prohibit conduct.  In other words, the law creates neither a right/benefit nor a duty.  Can any such law be characterized as serving a "compelling government interest," which is a test used in a constitutional strict scrutiny analysis.  Just one example of such a compelling statute would be interesting.</p>

<p><a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/36/301" rel="nofollow noreferrer">36 U.S. Code § 301(a)</a></p>

<blockquote>
  <p>The composition consisting of the words and music known as the Star-Spangled Banner is the national anthem.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>This, on its own, simply defines our national anthem, and even part (b) only says what people <em>should</em> (not <em>must</em>) do while it is being played.</p>

<p><a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/36/302" rel="nofollow noreferrer">36 U.S. Code § 302</a></p>

<blockquote>
  <p>“In God we trust” is the national motto.</p>
</blockquote>

<p><a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/36/101" rel="nofollow noreferrer">36 U.S. Code § 101</a>:</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>The President is requested to issue each year a proclamation...</p>
</blockquote>
