Part 1 (Questions 1-5)
When does someone have a right to procedural due process?
Someone has a right to procedural due process when unfair procedures or processes were used to deprive someone of liberty or property without a prior notice and opportunity to be heard ( Gostin & Wiley, 2016) .
2) What are five possible "procedures" available under procedural due process?
Relevance of the individual interests affected.
Importance of the state interests involved.
Burdens that may be imposed on the state by additional procedural safeguards.
Risks imposed by erroneous deprivation through procedures applied.
Value of any substitute procedural safeguards.
3) How do courts determine how much due process is necessary before enforcement of a particular communicable disease control law?
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
The courts through public health police powers pass and enforce quarantine and isolation and inspection laws that help in controlling the spread of diseases 1 .
4) What elements of due process would be required before a public health department can confine a person for 3 months for treatment for TB? Why?
The elements required are equity and evidence. Because the public health should obtain elicit evidence and not assumptions to produce decisions that exhibit rightness.
5) What elements of due process would be required before state college health officials could bar an un‑immunized student from classes during a measles outbreak? Why?
The elements required are expedition and equality. Because the health officials should expedite ethics to develop facts and arguments.
Part 2 (Questions 6-9): Substantive due process
6) Briefly define the meaning and purpose of substantive due process.
Substantive due process is a concept that implies that the government must provide a notice and hearing prior to termination of custody ( Gostin & Wiley, 2016) .The purpose of substantive due process is to allow courts to protect the fundamental rights from being manipulated by the government.
Use the following information to answer questions 7a through 7c.
The State of Utah passes a law prohibiting marriage between two persons who carry a specific genetic trait.
7a) Name the standard of review a typical court in the U.S. would use if the Utah law were challenged by plaintiff(s) claiming the law was an unconstitutional restriction of individual rights. Describe why the court would choose this standard, and what the standard requires in order for a statute to be constitutional.
The standard of review is substantial evidence ( Gostin & Wiley, 2016) . The court would choose this standard because it suggests that the evidence with sound mind supports a conclusion. The standard requires relevant evidence to be constitutional 2 .
7b) Would a court be likely to find the law constitutional or unconstitutional?
The law would be constitutional.
7c) Explain your answer in 7b using the facts of this particular situation.
Considering that genetic traits are associated with inheritance of genotypes (DNA), avunculate marriage may be considered as incest.
8a) Name the standard of review a typical court in the U.S. would use if the Utah law were challenged by plaintiff(s) claiming the law was an unconstitutional restriction of individual rights. Describe why the court would choose this standard, and what the standard requires in order for a statute to be constitutional.
The standard of review would be “clearly erroneous”.
The court would choose this standard because it scrutinizes cases that were tried without the jury appealed. The standard requires provision of judges’ facts in a finding in order to be constitutional.
8b) Would a court be likely to find the law constitutional or unconstitutional?
The law would be constitutional.
8c) Explain your answer in 8b using the facts of this particular situation.
Some levels of consanguinity may be prevalent, leading to physical disabilities among children because their parents share the same genes.
9a) Name the standard of review a typical court in the U.S. would use if the Utah law were challenged by plaintiff(s) claiming the law was an unconstitutional restriction of individual rights. Describe why the court would choose this standard, and what the standard requires in order for a statute to be constitutional .
The standard of review would be abuse of discretion ( Gostin & Wiley, 2016) . The court would choose this standard because it takes into consideration the legal issues in controversies. The standard requires taking into consideration facts in laws to be constitutional.
9b) Would a court be likely to find the law constitutional or unconstitutional?
The law would be constitutional.
9c) Explain your answer in 9b using the facts of this particular situation.
According to the federal laws, healthcare workers should be protected against infections by any disease emerging from the area of operation ( Glicksman & Levy, 2010) .
References
1. Glicksman, Robert L.; Levy, Richard E. (2010). Administrative Law: Agency Action in Legal Context. 9781599416106: Foundation Press.
2. Gostin, L. O., & Wiley, L. F. (2016). Public health law: power, duty, restraint . Univ of California Press.
