Details of this Paper

What arguments can Davey make? What arguments can the state make

Description

solution


Question

What arguments can Davey make? What arguments can the state make in its defense? Who will win the lawsuit?;Attachment Preview;Legal Issues For Managers Chapter 3 Page 154 & 155.PDF;154;UNIT I;F OUNDATIONS O F THE L EGAL A ND REGULATORY ENVIRONMENT;which such employment or position would interfere with;the BSA's mission of transmitting values to youth. The;BSA received about $10,000 annually from the Campaign until 2000, when the state dropped the organization;from the Campaign after the state Human Rights Commission asserted that i ncluding the BSA would violate;Connecticut's gay rights law, which prohibits the state;from "becoming a party to any agreement, arrangement or;plan which has the effect of sanctioning discrimination.;The BSA sued on the basis that it was "singled out and;excluded" from the Campaign based on its First Amendment right of association, a right that the U.S. Supreme;Court had recognized in Boy Scouts of America v. Dale;530 U.S. 640 (2000). What will each side argue? Who will;win? [Boy Scouts of America v. Wyman, 335 F.3d 80 (2d;Cir. 2003), cert, denied, 541 U.S. 903 (2004).];3. Most wine in the United States is distributed through a;three-tier network that developed after the repeal of Prohibition. First, the winery obtains a permit to sell wine.;Next, the winery sells its wine to a licensed wholesaler;who pays excise taxes and delivers the wine to a retailer.;The retailer then sells the wine to consumers. As demand;for wine has increased over the last two decades, the number of wineries has grown to more than 2,000, including;many small wineries. Meanwhile, the number of wholesalers has declined from several thousand to a few hundred. As a result, many small wineries are unable to find;wholesalers to carry their wine and are trying to market;their wine directly to consumers.;Juanita Swedenburg runs the Swedenburg Estate Vineyard in Middleburg, Virginia. People from all over the;United States visit her winery and purchase wine to take;home with them. Once they get home, many call the winery or use its website to order more bottles. However, the;laws in twenty-six states prohibit the direct shipment of;wine to consumers across state lines. The states claim that;the Twenty-first Amendment, which repealed Prohibition;gives them the authority to regulate the importation of;alcohol. Their claim is based on Section 2 of the amendment, which states that "[t]he transportation or importation into any state, territory, or possession of the United;States for delivery or use therein of intoxicating liquors, in;violation of the laws thereof, is hereby prohibited." Swedenburg, other winery owners, and wine lovers challenged;the direct-shipment laws. Are these direct-shipment laws;constitutional? Explain why or why not. [Granholm v.;Heald, 544 U.S. 460 (2005).];4.;John and Judith Rapanos were accused of destroying;wetlands, without a permit, on three central Michigan;sites that they hoped to develop. Regulators sought as;much as $1.4 million in fines and restoration of the site.;Rapanos argued that his land is far away from the nearest;river tributarytwenty miles in the case of one site. The;U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit concluded;however, that the Clean Water Act covered the property;because the land had a hydrological connrrJina to navigable w aterways because it ultimately duiatd inK> either;the Tittabawassee River or Lake Huron. Rapanos argued;that e xtending the Clean Water Act's jurisdiction to every;intrastate wetland with any sort of hydrological connection to navigable waters, no m atter how tenuous or remoie.;exceeds Congress's c onstitutional power to regulate commerce among the states. Is the Clean Water Act, which;gives permitting authority to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, for wetlands that are not adjacent to a river or other;navigable waterway, but are hydrologically connected to;these waterways because they drain into a tributary of a;river or navigable waterway, a constitutional exercise of;Congress's power under the Commerce Clause? Explain;why or why not. [Rapanos v. United States, 547 U.S. 715;(2006).];5.;In 2000, the city of New London, Connecticut, approved;a development plan, anchored by a $300 million Pfizer;research center, that was projected to create more than;1,000 jobs, to increase tax and other revenues, and to;revitalize the economically distressed city, including its;downtown and waterfront areas. The city designated the;NLDC, a nonprofit development corporation, as its development agent to be in charge of the development and to;purchase property in the ninety-acre area or to acquire it;by eminent domain in the city's name. The NLDC successfully negotiated the purchase of most of the property;but a few people refused to sell. Thereafter, the NLDC;began condemnation proceedings. Several property owners brought an action in state court, claiming, among other;things, that the taking of their properties would violate the;Fifth Amendment provision that states that private property may only be taken for "public use" with just compensation. Is the taking of private land by a private developer;as part of an economic development project a permitted;public use"? Should it be7'[Kelo v. New London, 545;U.S. 469 (2005).];I The State of Washington created a new college scholarship program, pursuant to which it awarded Promise;Scholarships to low- and middle-income students who;had achieved an excellent academic record in high school.;Joshua Davey was awarded one of the Promise Scholarships. The director of financial aid at Northwest College;however, determined that Davey did not meet the enrollment requirements for the Promise Scholarship because;C HAPTER 4;C ONSTITUTIONAL B ASES F OR B USINESS R EGULATION;he was pursuing a degree in pastoral ministries. Davey;filed a lawsuit in which he alleged that the provision of;the Washington law that denied Promise Scholarships to;students pursuing a degree in theology is unconstitutional.;What arguments can Davey make? What arguments can;the state make in its defense? Who will win the lawsuit?;[Locke v. Davey, 540 U.S. 712~(2004).];The U.S. Congress enacted the Controlled Substances Act;(CSA) as part of the Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970. The CSA establishes that;marijuana is a controlled substance and makes it unlawful to knowingly or intentionally manufacture, distribute;dispense, or possess with intent to manufacture, distribute;or dispense a controlled substance, including marijuana.;The CSA was enacted pursuant to Congress's authority;under the Commerce Clause and includes findings that;controlled substances have a substantial detrimental effect;on the health and general welfare of Americans, that controlled substances manufactured and distributed intrastate cannot be differentiated from controlled substances;manufactured and distributed interstate, and that federal;control of the intrastate incidents of traffic in controlled;substances is essential to the effective control of the interstate incidents of such traffic.;In 1996, California voters passed Proposition 215;codified as the Compassionate Use Act of 1996, to ensure;that patients and their primary caregivers who obtain and;use marijuana for medical purposes upon the recommendation of a physician are not subject to criminal prosecution.;Angel McClary Raich and Diane Monson are California;citizens who use marijuana as a medical treatment. Raich;has been diagnosed with more than ten serious medical conditions, including an inoperable brain tumor, and;Monson suffers from severe chronic back pain caused by a;degenerative disease of the spine. In April 2002, deputies;155;from the Butte County Sheriff's Department and agents;from the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration (DBA);came to Monson's home. The sheriff's deputies concluded;that Monson's use of marijuana was legal under the Compassionate Use Act. Nonetheless, after a three-hour standoff involving the Butte County District Attorney and the;U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of California, the;DBA agents seized and destroyed Monson's six cannabis;plants. Fearing raids in the future and the prospect of being;deprived of medicinal marijuana, Raich and Monson filed;suit against the U.S. Attorney General and the Administrator of the DBA, alleging that the CSA is unconstitutional.;Is the CSA unconstitutional? Explain why or why not.;[Gonzales v. Raich, 545 U.S. 1 (2005).];8.;Northwest Airlines prohibited smoking on all domestic;and most international flights, but it permitted smoking;on most flights to and from Asia. Julie Duncan filed a;class-action personal-injury suit against Northwest on;behalf of nonsmoking flight attendants who served as;crew on these smoking flights. Duncan claimed that by;permitting smoking, Northwest breached its duty under;Washington state law to provide a safe and healthy work;environment for its employees. Northwest filed a motion;to dismiss, asserting that Duncan's action was preempted;by Section 1305(a)(l) of the Airline Deregulation Act;which provides that "no state or political subdivision;thereof and no interstate agency or other political agency;of two or more states shall enact or enforce any law, rule;regulation, standard, or other provision having the force;and effect of law relating to the rates, routes or service of;any air carrier.;Is the state action tort claim preempted by the Airline;Deregulation Act? Explain why or why not. [Duncan v.;Northwest Airlines, Inc., 208 F.3d 1112 (9th Cir. 2000);cert, denied, 531 U.S. 1058 (2000).];For Internet resources, please visit our website at www.cengage.com/blaw/bagley.

 

Paper#34237 | Written in 18-Jul-2015

Price : $32
SiteLock