Business Law代写 Business LawWas the Code’s Provision Valid?The case Paduano v. City of New York, 257 N.Y.S.2d 531 was that the code ....
Was the Code’s Provision Valid?
The case Paduano v. City of New York, 257 N.Y.S.2d 531 was that the code did violate the mandate the constitution has granted it. Nevertheless, the fluoridation program was a policing duty to secure the life and health of citizens.Business Law代写
Its institution was in furtherance to curb the health problem of tooth decay and dental neglect in children.
The question of its value notwithstanding
the problem of public health was at stake and was within the powers of the Health Department.
In this regard
Section 141.08 of the health Code was neither against the public policy, state statute, any municipal ordinance nor more than exercising powers of the Health Department. The expenditure for the project was necessary and proper. The Department needed not to expend through capital budget and appropriation.Business Law代写
The capital expenditure can circumvent methods for capital budget appropriation which is legally permissible hence no judicial interference was required. Besides funding, the presence of alternative methods of administering fluorides to the targeted group was irrelevant thus the action to fluoridate public water was lawful. Additionally,人文社科代写
the issue of discrimination does not apply as the children will become adults and fluoride will affect them all. Finally, children’s health is a government concern to protect their general welfare.
A decision on Case on Freedom of Information
The issue of access to information is sensitive as it a double-edged sword with the freedom to access information for democratic participation on one side and rights to privacy on the other. The union of clerical workers needed the information about the donors and it is their right to demand access to information in custody of public facility. At the same time,Business Law代写
Michigan State University is a state utility that is trusted with the responsibility to protect the rights to privacy of those in custodian of private information.
The application of the Michigan Freedom of Information Act has exceptions which limits the rights to access states information. In such cases that the data is guarded by another federal law, that the information being requested can only be solely accessed by the authorized internal personnel and it is a practice of the agency, and that the access will invade another person’s right to privacy.
The Michigan State University stand protected by the above exemptions to the freedom of disclosure and more conspicuously the responsibility to protection the donors’ right to privacy. Therefore, the case Clerical-Technical Union of Michigan State University v. Board of Trustees of Michigan State University, 475 N.W.2d 373 (Mich.) should rule in favor of the defendant on grounds of the aforementioned exemptions.
[caption id="attachment_17946" align="alignnone" width="300"] Business Law代写[/caption]
Clerical-Technical Union of Michigan State University v. Board of Trustees of Michigan State University, 475 N.W.2d 373 (Mich.)
Paduano v. City of New York, 257 N.Y.S.2d 531