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 The states claim that;the Twenty-first Amendment, which repealed Prohibition;gives them the authority to regulate the importation of;alcohol.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-2015Price : $32