The Case Involving Lucas and the South Carolina - Essay Example

College Question The case involving Lucas and the South Carolina based court concerning ownership of disputed lots proved hostile. The verdict was passed under a bench judges by votes of six against two and as such, it unanimously passed as legal and just. This state law court in its ruling declared the lots valueless and therefore should not be utilised further but rather remain under the state’s watch. An appeal filed against the ruling to the Supreme Court took a different dimension. Regulatory taking, as a legal practice by most governments, has become an avenue employed by various governments to amass wealth and take control of one’s property o entirely an enterprise in the pretext that it is a legal procedure hence legally protected. This they do without necessarily assuming the ownership and title but by exercising full authority and influence. To achieve this, the police power was used to oversee that the recommendations are given a priority. The ruling by the South Carolina court was not just. This is due to a number of reasons as will be outlined. Firstly, Luca’s lots could not at any cost be subject these Acts regarding building permits as required by this court. It is shocking that these Acts were enacted two years later after such an acquisition had been effected. Lucas is shamelessly deprived of his legitimate right to fully own and economically exploits his enterprise. The legal institution further goes ahead and declares the estate valueless, which is unjust itself. Dramatically, it is shocking to learn that the same court seeks to award a would be just compensation worth one million and two hundred American dollars, a pledge it revokes and reverses to suit its interest. The court’s application of an assertion based on lethal usage principal ought not to have been used in the first case. A clause from regulations drawn by the Supreme Court, which contravenes this assertion, requires an individual to be compensated upon such an occurrence without digging any deep into the matter. In this regard, public interest is not prioritizes but is the collateral damage posed to the victim. It comes out that the principal so adopted by the court was a police power deployment to ensure that what would appear unjust was justified and everything concealed behind the curtains to evade what in their view is unnecessary compensation. Thou Mr. Lucas was against the legal requirements as per the pre-amendment traps, he surely deserved a compensation since the said lots had no such serious implications on the public. Question.2 In line with the aforesaid question, I stand to air a number of defence questions. Firstly, I will air this for the utilization by my esteemed client. I would try establishing the course of their resigning from their previous station. This in my view will in turn eliminate any possible loopholes as far as conflict of interest is concerned. It will actually strengthen loyalty among these workers thereby increasing efficiency and service delivery. By so doing, I would ask them to table any written and duly signed documents stating the same. Another question worth asking the client is his intentions of suddenly accepting the offer. He should clarify accordingly if he or she is agreeing to the previous terms because any contravention means a breach of the contract and would deem fit for treat invitation. I would demand to know if what he offers me is a counter- offer to my original proposal and further demand if he or she will stick to the previous rules outlaid. It is common knowledge that for any given form of agreement to effect into a contract, there must always be an offer, which materialises into acceptance if the deal is feasible and lastly a binding contract is signed. It is also against the contract legislations to accept any given offer by issuing conditions as this should be unconditional. By the client having asserted to be in for the contract deal and quoting his own payment is contravention, and tantamount to question hence, should a more candid explanation of the same should be sought form them. Question 3 Lochner’s case Lochner, being in possession of a large bakery, opted to employ a number of workers in his premises as a practice that would be adopted by many of his kind for the sole purpose of efficient production process. As earlier stated, the proprietor himself took it upon himself to recruit his subordinates at the behest of his own command. Unfortunately, he did allow his workers to work in his premises for a period exceeding sixty hours, which contravened the Bakeshop Act of New York labour law. Having found himself on the corridors of justice, Lochner filed an appeal challenging the verdict, as he perceived it as a deprivation of his right to contract as per the clause of the Due Process contained in the fourteenth amendment. Peckham, in his argument says that it is the sole responsibility of the court to establish the fairness, appropriateness and possibly the level-headedness of the police power in as far as their exercising of power in the state is concerned. Pecker further brings the other side of the coin by dramatically challenging the court to prove if the legislations were not merely unreasonable or unnecessary and if they were not to interfere arbitrarily with individual rights to secure contracts, as was the case with Lochner. His take on this is based on the fourteenth amendment, which protects individual rights to securing of contract except for such instances when the said worker’s health and welfare is threatened. As it is known traditionally, that most states used police power as machinery to exercise authority, it is upon this foundation that Harlan based his argument. He asserts that it is the social responsibility of the police through statutes to protect the workers’ well being at their work place. He further stresses that working of these workers in excess of sixty hours may eventually endanger these individuals’ health. In reference to the word liberty as used in the fourteenth alteration of the state laws, Mr. Holmes states that the term so applied does not annul a statute unless it is seen to be infringing the very basic individuals’ principals and those of the supreme law. He opined that everyone is entitled to a regulated liberty, courtesy of state laws, which have since remained legitimate. He takes a firm stance that the constitution was intended to be applicable to all and for the good of all, regardless of class. Question 4 According to Mrs. Jenny Johnson’s act of pointing accusing fingers at the companies are arguably justifiable and worth the trouble as she puts it. I sympathize with the cancer victims in question. It goes without say that, these companies neglected the society by mere failure to educate them on the various associated health hazards of such wastes. This is essential in the sense that these disorders and illnesses could have been evaded if they took it upon themselves to do the initiation. Thus, the saying goes, prevention is better than cure. It proves a bit of a challenge on the side of the defendant, as their chances to escape the liability are more than slim. It cannot, for instance be concluded that the negligence came from the side of the minor. It can as well be argued that the minor acted in a way dissimilar to the case if it were to be with adults. Mrs. Johnson would throw allegations at the companies on acts pertaining to disposal of wastes. Apart from being environmentally hazardous, they pose a great threat to the day today life of humans and animals as a whole. It is a legal requirement that all companies abide by these acts, which regulate the disposal of wastes. More often than not, most companies discharge their refuse after subjecting them to some treatments to render them harmless. However, raising such allegations would prove expensive on Mrs. Jenny. To begin with, the companies have since operated in these plots for over forty years. This has already passed the threshold within the framework provided by the laws governing industrial operation. Normally, twenty years are deemed enough to justify a company’s operation as lawful and issuable under whatever circumstances. It therefore disqualifies her case as she only waits to accuse the company after being struck by predicament. Question 5 It is helpful to begin the discussion of ethics and morality by clarifying those terms, which are often used interchangeably. In fact, the terms are closely related but have different meanings. The key distinction is, “ethics” refers to the very inquiry or assessment about what is good demeanour and on the subject of our decision-making progression when confronted with dilemma about what the right course of action might be. On the other hand, morality refers to our values about what is perceived good and ill. Morality is a social institution. It predates each of us; it is passed along through generations. People grow u p with a basic understanding of moral norms, such as truth-telling, keeping promises, not killing or harming innocent persons. Morality encompasses moral principles, rules, standards of conduct, and values. As such, it provides reference points for our ethical decision-making process. What is the source of morality? Throughout history, many religious traditions and philosophical theories have offered perspectives on morality and have contributed to an understanding about what constitutes right and wrong human conduct and about what moral norms should guide human decision making. Moral norms often require interpretation in circumstances when we grapple with moral dilemmas. For example, in public health practice an official must sometimes decide between two competing obligations, such as respecting the rights of an individual and protecting the community’s health. In the end, the official must decide which moral obligation outweighs the other and in acting must compromise an obligation that would stand if there were not a conflict. Meticulous norms, for example, those found in other profession’s codes of ethics, provide direction for practitioners pertaining to the morals of conduct as well as actions in their training. The general ideology underlying such guidelines and particular day today happenings are synonymous. However, they are given a differently contextualised professional practice. In his view, Eliot Freidson gives an account on a somewhat simple matter, while one might consider that being mendacious is wrong, is it erroneous for a general practitioner to bend his principles to a patient’s request with a fatal but not immediately disabling condition that her family be lied to about her circumstance until final arrangements are completed. While exposure laws are infrequently enforced, they do carry with them certain penalties, which include fines and license withdrawal from medical care practitioners among other legalities. Failing to comply with any reporting laws can be the starting point of tort liability. A case is known to have arisen between Derrick and Ontario Community Hospital. As per the case, the hospital failed to inform the authorities about some communicable disease, as law requirement. Plaintiff alleged that had the disease been reported, the health officer would have taken measures to prevent the spread of the disease and plaintiff would not have been infected. The court agreed that hospital could be found liable if plaintiff could show that it had a legal duty to report the disease and that reporting the disease would have led to activities that would have reduced the probability that plaintiff would be infected. Failure to act in accordance with the applicable laws, among them reporting laws and undercover demands, is the basis for revoking individuals’ medical license and the operating licenses of institutions. While this penalty is seldom used, it has been upheld by the law lords. While legal coercion is seldom applied in routine disease research, derision of court penalties and imprisonment are worth adoption to force conformity to the investigations’ demands. This might become necessary in a bioterrorism investigation for instance. Some public health investigations, such as those investigating an STI in a child require that legal acts be involved. When cross-examination is conducted by law enforcement officers, then so is undertaken as per the criminal law standards. It is so sensitive that it requires legal protections such as a state counsel’s presence. It also permits the individual to be strained to comply with the enquiry. While public health concerns will be considered by law enforcement, they may be treated as inferior to the unlawful investigation. In discussing public health responses to bioterrorism, commentators highlight the role of civic imagination in public health ethics, which in contrast to detached moral principles, can build community relationships and provide motivation and emotional energy for good citizenship. All signatories who can contribute to accomplishment of tasks as a public health structure should be confident to weigh up their roles and errands, consider the changes that there may be, and adopt ways to develop joint forces with erstwhile partners. They can renovate the approach on how they ‘do businesses’ for the betterment of their physical condition and of the general population. The physical condition policy should create good incentives to formulate these partnerships in an easier manner. Work cited Brower, David J. David H. Lucas, Petitioner, V. South Carolina Co[a]tal Council. Chapel Hill, N.C: Dept. of City and Regional Planning, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, 1992. Buckley, William F, Neil C. Robinson, and Alexander M. Sanders. The Lucas Case and Private Property Rights. Columbia, S.C: ETV, 1997. Tanenhaus, David S. Encyclopedia of the Supreme Court of the United States. Detroit: Macmillan Reference USA, 2008. Internet resource. Lochner V. New York. S.l.: Great Neck Pub, 2009. Internet resource. Kens, Paul. Lochner V. New York. Lawrence: University press of Kansas, 1998. Print. Read More