Wilde Case Summary

Freedom of municipal law, when pertaining to the state government, has its pros and cons. One pro is the lack of necessary for the state to review every policy that the city makes. Another is that the cities could work on ways to solve their own problems and allow more of the community’s voices to be heard. A corresponding con is the lack of connection between the cities and states that could further lead to a misuse of power. Also, if the cities feel that there is little to no authority acting over them, they could become power hungry and try to push policies that their communities disagree with.

He argued the right to purchase or sell labor was a protected right under the liberty included under the Fourteenth Amendment. However, he admitted states had police powers, which could limit the property and liberty of individuals. There was a limit on the exercise of police power though, or the Fourteenth Amendment would be useless. The police powers could be used for the safety, morals, general welfare, and health of the public. The New York law did not involve the safety, morals, or general welfare of the public. Justice Peckham argued the law did not affect the health of the public either because clean bread did not depend on the number of hours an individual worked. Working as a baker was not considered healthy but was also not regarded as unhealthy. Therefore, if the Court allowed the legislature to make laws on occupations not absolutely healthy, it would have the power to regulate almost every occupation. Justice Peckham argued the New York law was invalid because it interfered with the liberty of individuals to make contracts protected by the Fourteenth Amendment. Justice Harlan dissented, arguing the New York law was enacted to protect the physical health of employees in bakeries. Justice Holmes also dissented, arguing the Constitution should not be interpreted in favor of an economic theory,

"Property being an inviolable and sacred right, no one may be deprived of it except when public necessity..."

What alternatives are available to Brent in regards to the audit of payables? What are the pros and cons of each alternative?

The Merit case of Fernandez v. California is seeking to determine whether the Constitutional rights of Walter Fernandez were violated under the 4th Amendment when law enforcement conducted a search of his residence upon obtaining consent from his girlfriend, who was also a resident, after Fernandez was taken into custody (and had stated his objections to the search while at the scene). In Georgia v. Randolph (2006), in a 5 to 3 decision, the Supreme Court held that when two co-occupants are present and one consents to a search while the other refuses, the search is not constitutional. This paper will provide a statement of the decision, based on current

| 21 |LO 4 |Basis for inherited property: community property vs common law | |Unchanged | 21 |

Issue: The issue in this case is whether the state violated the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment and the Fourteenth Amendment.

The California Court of Appeal found the warrantless search was justified by Rojas’s written and verbal consent. The court agreed with the majority of the federal circuits, in that, this case was “indispensable to the decision in Randolph.” The decision was ultimately concluded that a tenant’s objection has no force if he or she is not physically present. Therefore held, the warrantless search was lawful because Rojas; a co-tenant, consented. Fernandez was denied review in the California Court of Appeal, however certiorari was granted.

Mapp V. Ohio case decision affects society by protection against unreasonable search and seizures. The reason why Mapp was protected by the fourth amendment is because a case had already been tried and decided before in 1914. The case for Mapp’s just solidified that people are indeed protected by the fourth amendment. State authorities cannot enter your home without a warrant and cannot gather anything as evidence and prosecute you with

Although a thermal imager was used from a vantage point close to Kyllo’s home, the agents’ search was not intrusive of Kyllo’s home. In cases such as California v. Ciraolo and Florida v. Riley, the court opinion held that observation from a publicly navigable airspace, as long

   To save their homes from becoming open land, the nine petitioners sued New London and Pfizter Inc., to whom New London has given eminent domain power. The petitioners argue that what incorporation is doing, and what the government of the state has allowed violates their fifth amendment rights. Petitioners are not arguing about the fact of a new

Individual rights versus the good of the community, is an issue that American has struggled with for a long time. In addition, the case of Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council Mr. Lucas contended that his two beautiful but fragile beachfront properties located in Barrier Islands were made worthless by the passage of the Beachfront Management Act. According to the Supreme Court, the Coastal Council was simply using its “police powers” to “protect our state’s unstable coastline from further erosion caused by construction.” (South Carolina Tribune)

Mickens v. Taylor, 535 U.S. 162, 122 S. Ct. 1237, 152 L. Ed. 2d 291 (2002)

Question 5: Based on the ruling of the Supreme Court in City of Chicago v. Morales, what protections of the individual do you think must be included in an ordinance proscribing loitering?

Sometimes a law is just on its face and unjust in its application. For instance, I have been arrested on a charge of parading without a permit. Now there is nothing wrong in having an ordinance, which requires a permit for parade. But such an ordinance becomes unjust when it is used to maintain segregation and to deny citizens the First-Amendment privilege of peaceful assembly and protest (53).