Civil Liberties and Tort Law.

Civil Liberties and Tort Law
Student Name
Institution

Question 1
Does the ban of bercenimide in food constitute violation of Suchai people?
Introduction
The question follows the ban of foods containing a chemical substance known as bercenimide by
the California Department of Public Health. Bercenimide refers to a natural component found in
plants such as the Campion flower used by the Suchai people as part of their religious believes
and practice. In effecting the ban that has now been passed as law, the department rationale was
based on evidence conducted by scientists1. First, it is said that the chemical increases the level
of cholesterol in individual’s body and therefore resulting to a rise in levels of contracting heart
diseases. Secondly, the public health department intention is towards protecting the public from
the dangerous substance so as to ensure effective control of cost spend on States health and not
to shorten citizen’s lives. Finally, the argument is that; the ban is aimed specifically for purposes
of protecting the public’s health condition and not frustrating in any way the practice of Suchai
people.
Bercenimide in food and violation of Suchai people
Therefore, following the occurrence of the above events, there is need to determine whether the
rights of the Suchai people have been violated in accordance with the provisions of the First
Amendment rights. In this regard it is important to note that; the United States citizens enjoy
most of their rights subject to the provisions of the first ten amendments of their Constitution
oftenly referred to as the, Bill of rights2.

In this regard, amendment 1 provides that: the Congress should not make any law that is against
ones religion or one that prohibits their free exercise or one that is against their freedom of
speech or that of the media. Neither shall it make a law that interferes with individual’s right to
assemble peacefully and to petition government for a redress of their grievances. Therefore, the
United States Bill of Rights protects their citizens, freedom of speech; freedom of religion;
freedom of assembly; freedom of the press and right to petition for violation of their rights.
In considering the violation of the rights of Suchai people, it is important to consider whether all
rights are fully enjoyed without any limitation4. Which the answer is no, since there always
seems to be a limitation on the enjoyment of one’s right. For instance considering the freedom of
speech, one cannot say that the right is fully qualified since there is a caveat in regards to the
commission of slander of libel which therefore limits the enjoyment of freedom of speech. In
addition, in justifying limitation of individual’s right, States are always of the argument that the
public interest has to take precedent over the interest of an individual or certain group of
individuals. Therefore, the health department is justified for putting a ban on foods containing
the bercenimide chemical as it cannot put the life of the whole state at risk over that of a small
religious group5.
Similarly, considering that California risks spending a lot of cost on the health sector by allowing
the continuous use of foods containing the chemical, it will be proper not to lift the ban so as to
ensure that, the cost is used to benefit the residents in securing other services.
On the other hand, the state is normally tasked with ensuring that the life of their citizens is
protected at all cost and this therefore justifies why the public health went ahead with the ban