Presumption of constitutionality: When weakens

A fundamental right is one explicitly or implicitly implied guaranteed by the constitution.”
[Ballard v. Commonwealth, 228 Va. 216 (1984). See also Marshall v. Northern Virginia Transportation Authority, 275 Va. 419, 657 S.E.2d. 71 (2008)]
"As a general rule, where a statute is constitutional as applied to a litigant, the litigant has no standing to challenge the statute on the ground that it may be unconstitutional on its face, that is, as applied to a third person in a hypothetical situation."  

Esper Company v. Commonwealth, 222 Va. 595, 597, 283  S.E.2d 185, 186 (1981) (citation omitted)...."

We have  said that classification ordinarily will be upheld "if any state of facts  can be reasonably conceived that would support it."  

But where the  statute creates a "suspect classification" (e.g. race, sex, or religion) or  where it affects a fundamental constitutional right, the presumption  of constitutionality fades, and the "strict scrutiny" test, rather than the  more relaxed "rational relationship" test applies."  

 James Jackson v. Commonwealth __ Va. App.__ S.E.2d __ (2004).
The following observarion of US court of Appeals makes it clear that every statute is to be considered constitutional unless it is absolutely necessary
"It is an "established principle of constitutional law that a court will not rule upon the constitutionality of a statute unless such a determination is absolutely necessary to decide the merits of the case" 
Volkswagen of America, Inc. v. Smit, 266 Va. 444, 454, 587  S.E.2d 526, 532 (2003).
 See Also: 
"[A] statute will be construed to avoid a  constitutional question whenever this is possible."
 Yamaha Motor Corp. v. Quillian, 264 Va.  656, 665, 571 S.E.2d 122, 126-127 (2002).