Assignment module 2

Chapter 3
C. 5 p.79
According to Rights Theory, especially Modern Rights Theories, (Textbook p.5455) human rights universal, inalienable, indivisible and interdependent. Followers
of this theory believe that there may be circumstances that justify a lie or murder.
Rights theory concentrates its attention on individual rights of each member of
society. That is why, the secretary could ethically withhold information about
Mrozek`s acknowledgment of having committed a murder. Since the information
about the killing was communicated to secretary or to the attorney this information
covered within the attorney-client privilege. Mrozek deserves to be protected under
the legal ethics that have laid down basis upon which the same may be enjoyed.
Since knowledge acquired by the secretary is protected by the attorney-client
privilege, the secretary must respect that right accruing to Mrozek. So, she could
disguise the information without breakings the laws.
A legal system could ethically permit murders, for example, under the
ethical theory of justice which require that actions must be fair to all who is
involved in the judicial process. As for attorney-client privilege, this rule applies
only if (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attorney-client_privilege):
1) The asserted holder of the privilege is or sought to become a client.
2) The person to whom the communication was made is a member of the bar of
a court, or his subordinate.
3) The communication relates to a fact of which the attorney was informed by
his client, without the presence of strangers, for the purpose of securing
either an opinion of law, legal services or assistance in a legal matter, and
not for the purpose of committing a crime or tort.
4) The privilege has been claimed and is not waived by the client.
In our case, all of these requirements have been fulfilled. Mrozek called his
attorney, with whom he already had a professional relationship, for the purpose of
retaining him to defend against murder charges which he expected would be filed

against him. The communication was made to the Melissa Shup, attorney's
secretary, a subordinate. The communication took place without the presence of
strangers. The communication was made to get the attorney to speak to him
regarding the representation and the privilege was both claimed and not waived.
Hence fair and legitimate trial requires adherence to attorney-client privilege, so it
is permit murderers, like Mrozek, to go free.
C. 6 p. 79
From my point of view, this question refers to a whole range of reasons why such
thoughts and ideas are considered. On the one hand, Russia moved to a market
economy rather recently. Moreover, all processes related to the breakdown of the
old system led the country to the new format of business relations. Russian
mentality in conjunction with market economy set their own ethical boundaries.
For some companies and managers it is really unacceptable because society itself
misunderstood such practices. On the other hand, mass layoffs and aggressive
pricing policies typical and acceptable for many countries and are widely
distributed throughout the world, including Russia. Although, for the present
moment in Russia, such practices are not habitual and are not ethical in some way
because of set of economic biases and psychological barriers. Nevertheless, it is
noticeable that Russia is already on the way of capitalism and adopts experience
and adjusts to various practices in its economy.
C. 7 p. 79
The tobacco company could ethically justify choice of the Eastern Europe market
for their products from the standpoint of the theory of profit maximization. This
theory focuses merely on making a decision that maximizes profits for manager
and/or the organization (Textbook p.58) Profit maximizers suppose that total social
welfare is optimized if humans are permitted to work toward their own selfish
goals. In order to prove total social utility company`s executives should pay

attention to the following: , ,

..
The new production will result the creation of a large number of new
workplaces in Easter Europe;
The tobacco company will pay taxes to the local states;
The tobacco company should develop the infrastructure necessary for
operating in this market.
Moreover, antismoking groups can not restrict the free competition inherent to a
market economy. Nevertheless, ignoring important rights not only of employees,
shareholders, suppliers but also customers and communities may negatively impact
a corporations profits. That is why, tobacco company`s executives should not
forget that a business that engages in behavior that is judged unethical by
consumers and other members of society is subject to boycotts, adverse publicity,
demands for more restrictive laws, and other reactions that damage company`s
image, decrease its revenue, and increase its costs.
Chapter 4
C.2 p.98
To begin with application of Commerce Clause is not entirely correct in this
particular situation. First, we should define the Commerce Clause. The Clause
states that the United States Congress shall have the power To regulate commerce
with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes(U.S.
Constitution, Article I, Section 8 http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/articlei).
In our case we can see no weapon transportation between states, no interstate
commerce. Robert W. Stewart did not buy or sell his machine guns at the time of
the search. According to The Second Amendment of the U. S. Constitution
(http://constitution.findlaw.com/amendments.html) citizens have a right to bear
arms, gun ownership is allowed too. So, Congress cannot prohibit the mere
possession of this guns.

C.4 p.98
The equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment provides that no state
shall deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws
(http://constitution.findlaw.com/amendments.html). A MSM Farms is also a
person under the equal protection clause. However, the equal protection clause is
satisfied if the law adopted through the initiative process is rationally related to a
legitimate state interest. So, we should use scheme of equal protection analysis
(Textbook p.92). In this situation State`s prohibition on nonfamily corporate
farming deprive plaintiff of a fundamental right. This prohibition directly
advancing a compelling governmental interest as serves the public interest in
preserving an agricultural where families own and farm the land. State`s regulation
was the least intrusive means for achieving the compelling governmental interest.
Therefore, the prohibition is constitutional.
C.6 p.99
The officials were right about state action necessity. Firstly, if we find the
definition of a right to free speech we will see that in the First Amendment of the
United States Constitution (Textbook p.92) stated that the right to freedom of
speech allows individuals to express themselves without interference or constraint
by the government. Secondly, we should understand what the state action means.
In Federal Civil Rights Acts, dating back to 1875, it is any activity by the
government of a state, any of its components or employees (like a sheriff), who
uses the "color of law" (claim of legal right) to violate an individual's civil rights
(http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/State+Action). So, was a decision to
reject the ads an activity by the government?
Obviously is not. The decision to reject the advertising was made by the student
editors, and they cant represent the Government. Also, school is not a government
agency. What is more, students are underage.