Argumentative paper - Essay Example

Unconstitutional The rule is prima facie unconstitutional and should be stricken down. The regulation prohibiting aircrafts to fly over areas as specified by the Federal Aviation Administration deprives Ben of his right to due process as guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment. The prohibition as laid down by FAA infringes upon his constitutional liberties such as his right to go on with his business. As such, this is also a material taking because he is forbidden to use his aircraft which he had done for the last 15 years without interference from government administration.

The taking constitutes significant facts that include losing at the very least $10, 000 when he was not permitted to fulfill his obligation to Ford during the Chief/Bronco game. The rule promulgated by FAA is unconstitutional for businesses, such as that of Ben is not illegal nor does it mislead the people. The purpose of the law is vague and the rationale behind it finds no balance to the nonexistence of impending danger as unreasonably feared by these government offices. The business of advertising through aircrafts has little to no possibility of having any relation to the goal of fighting terrorism or preventing its effects.

People such as Ben are unduly deprived of their commerce because of such muddled policies. The First Amendment is inclusive of its protection of Commercial speech and this must be given weight in the case at hand. Under the Central Hudson Test, as promulgated by the Supreme Court in the case of Central Hudson Gas & Electric v Public Service Commission, “Commercial speech will be protected by the First Amendment if it is a lawful activity and not misleading, there is a qualified government interest, that such interest is substantial and parallel to the regulation and finally, that the regulation is legitimately laid down.

This leads to the conclusion that the business of Ben must be protected based on the given requisites. The government cannot infringe and take away the rights of individuals arbitrarily. Constitutional The preservation of human life is the most fundamental task of the State to protect. This necessity is above any other right that presupposes those of a chosen few over that of the greater good. Certainly there is no restriction so grave as to make it an abuse by those conferred with the power to enforce it if the purpose and the means employed is within the bounds prescribe and for reasons that is but appropriate for the moment it was enforced.

The imminence of terrorism cannot be dispelled and prohibitions that ensued are appropriate measures to protect public safety. The government is advancing its inherent power when it “prohibits all aircraft operations within a 3 nautical mile radius/ 3000 feet AGL and below over any major professional or collegiate sporting event or any other major open air assembly of people” (Federal Aviation Administration, n.p.). This regulation is substantive of the ‘Central Hudson Test’ as it is a restriction on free speech wherein the regulation is in lieu of the government’s interest and the prohibition is carefully laid down that it is not overbroad (Linder, par. 4). The precise inclusion of 3 nautical miles and the areas and time affected makes this a valid administrative regulation germane to the purpose of the law.

That Ben was unable to realize a potential income when he was not allowed to fly over a game to advertise is subsidiary to the interest of the government to ensure public safety. The business of Ben is not immune to the administrative regulation disallowing aircrafts to fly over the specified areas. The rule is pursuant to the police power of the state, an inherent power that does not even need to be included in any written documentation. It is for the general welfare of the citizens and therefore, the rule is constitutional and cannot be ruled otherwise as this would lead to the perplexing of the sovereignty of the government.

Bibliography Federal Aviation Administration. September 11, 2002. 11 September 2002. 20 February 2011 . Linder, Doug. Government Regulation of Commercial Speech. July 2001. 19 February 2011 . Net Industries. Freedom of Speech - Commercial Speech. 2011. 19 February 2011 .