QUESTION: I am a little confused on the strict scrutiny test spectrum. For instance, under rational basis, it says the objective language must be "legitimate," which is the language used for the Dormant Commerce Clause test. However, in lecture it was stated that if a law is found to be facially discriminatory then the Court applies the strict scrutiny test, but the language of "legitimate" implies a rational basis level of scrutiny. So I am a bit confused from the breakdown on the board today.
ANSWER: Perfectly understandable question. I was not meaning to present a fully comprehensive examination of all the different forms of judicial scrutiny applied in constitutional law. Rather, my intent was to illustrate the three tiers of scrutiny typically applied in "individual rights" cases: rational basis, intermediate, and strict.
You are absolutely right, in that the scrutiny applied to state laws that discriminate against interstate commerce is a sort of hybrid. It demands that the state interest merely be legitimate (i.e., something other than protectionism), and that the means be necessary (i.e., there is no feasible nondiscriminatory alternative). This is a technical point, but I would not call this "strict scrutiny" in its classic sense (though you would not really be wrong for doing so). The reason, as you say, is that we do not demand that the government's interest be compelling. It is sufficient that it be something other than protectionism.
Now, you might ask, why has the Court set up this sort of hybrid test? The reason lies in the ultimate purpose of dormant Commerce Clause--namely, to prohibit parochial, protectionist state regulation. When the government impinges on a person's constitutionally protected right, in contrast, we demand that the government have a really good (indeed, compelling) reason for doing so. But with the dormant Commerce Clause, the concern is different. Our goal is really just to root out one sort of legislative goal: economic protectionism. So the government's interests need not be compelling.