Quarter One: Assignment 2

2

QUESTION 1: A Ggroup of smokers,

I think the supreme court should not hold the tobacco producer, Altria liable or accountable. The company correctly labelled their cigarette products s per the Federal Cigarette Labelling and Advertising Act (US Federal Trade Commission 2016). It was up to the smokers to read the instructions and make a decision to take or not to use the cigarettes. The consequences of smoking would be as a result of the smokers not the company. Companies must product customers by properly advising or labeling their products for use. By altering the cigarettes at the ventilation to allow lower tar, it was the fault of the smokers. They are fully liable to their actions. It is unlawful to hold a company liable for misuse of a product that it has correctly labeled. Practically, if you buy a knife and cut yourself while cutting a fruit, it is your fault not the fault of the company that manufactured or sold the knife. In the case of cigarettes, it is factual that they are harmful to your health (Gallagher, 2015). The health issues incurred may not be entirely from inhaling the cigarettes.

Reference

US Federal Trade Commission. (2016). Federal Cigarette Labeling and Advertising Act of 1966.

Gallagher, M. M. (2015). Clear Evidence of Impossibility Preemption After Wyeth v. Levine. Gonz. L. Rev., 51, 439.

Question 2: Mrs. Florence Dolan

The scenario presents an essential nexus between the permit conditions and the true interests of the state. However, the dedication of the city to the necessities make up take up of a property without compensation. The city has relied on findings that do not show lawful relationship between Dolan propose building and the floodplain easement. It was easy for the undeveloped floodplain to meet the requirements set by the Community Development Code (Goodin, 2005). The code states that Dolan should leave 15% of the property to open space. It was up to the floodplain to comply with the requirement. On the other hand, the city has not stated why the public is required in the interest of flood control as opposed to private firms. The city failed to demonstrate that increasing the number of trips was part of the requirement by the city to dedicate an easement path.

Reference

Goodin, C. T. (2005). Dolan V. City of Tigard and the Distinction between Administrative and Legislative Exactions: A distinction without a constitutional Difference. U. Haw. L. Rev., 28, 139.

Question 3: The Heart of Atlanta Motel

Discrimination based on color, nationality, race or religion is prohibited under the title II of the Civil Rights Act (Stainback & Tomaskovic-Devey, 2012). The act extends to public and private places such as restaurants, hotels and entertainment joints or places. It is a constitutional act that must be respected and enforced by courts of law. The right gives every American whether African or white the right to access any public place without discrimination. In this case, the Heart of Atlanta Motel is a typical case covered under the Title II act. It is similar to the Ollie’s Barbecue case that involves similar rights where the management or owners of the places only wanted white people to access and use their premises despite being public places. African Americans were barred from the eateries. They went ahead to file a lawsuit but it was overturned based on the provisions under Title II of the Civil Rights Act. Similarly, the case of United States V. Morrison involved violation of similar rights. However, the Morrison case involved the violation of Women’s Act. The Commerce Clause criminalizes violence against women. Section 5 of the 24th Amendment similarly criminalizes violence against women as held by the Supreme Court.

References

Stainback, K., & Tomaskovic-Devey, D. (2012). Documenting desegregation: Racial and gender segregation in private sector employment since the Civil Rights Act. Russell Sage Foundation.