AMAIZING OFFER GET 25% OFF YOUR FIRST ORDER CODE FIRST25
“New York City’s charter authorized the New York City Board of Health to adopt a health code that it declared to have the force and effect of law. The board adopted a code that provided for the fluoridation of the public water supply. A suit was brought to enjoin the carrying out of this program on the grounds that it was unconstitutional, and that money could not be spent to carry out such a program in absence of a statute authorizing the expenditure. It was also claimed that the fluoridation program was unconstitutional because there were other means of reducing tooth decay; fluoridation was discriminatory by benefiting only children; it unlawfully imposed medication on children without their consent; and fluoridation was or may be dangerous to health. Was the code’s provision valid? [Paduano v. City of New York, 257 N.Y.S.2d 531]Should be at least three full paragraphs long.
Requirements: .doc file