Final answer:
The homeowner's association's action to evict Jackie because she has a child is likely unconstitutional under the Fair Housing Act of 1968, which prohibits discrimination based on familial status among other criteria. Cases like Shelley v. Kraemer support the argument against the enforceability of such discriminatory practices.
Explanation:
The question concerns whether the action taken by a homeowner's association (HOA) to force Jackie, who has recently had a child, to move out of the complex due to a rule prohibiting children is constitutional. The Fair Housing Act of 1968, which was enacted to eliminate housing discrimination based on familial status, would likely render the HOA's action unconstitutional. This Act protects individuals from discriminatory practices regarding the sale, rental, and financing of housing based on race, color, national origin, religion, sex, familial status (including children under the age of 18 living with parents or legal custodians, pregnant women, and people securing custody of children under the age of 18), and disability.
Earlier cases such as Shelley v. Kraemer (1948), which found that racially restrictive covenants could not be enforced by state courts, illustrate the legal precedent for prohibiting discrimination in housing. The case concerning the HOA's action against Jackie could invoke similar principles related to the enforcement of discriminatory covenants or rules. Considering these legal precedents and protections established by the Fair Housing Act, the HOA's actions could be challenged as unconstitutional, as they seem to discriminate based on familial status.
Does the equator cross the northern or southern part of South America
Stuart hall sees media as ___________ where various forces struggle to shape popular notions about social reality.
The most significant part of a person’s self concept
If a diabolical villain threatened to blow up a city unless you kill one innocent person, what would a kantian say you have to do?
A Kantian would say that even in the face of severe consequences, one must not kill an innocent person as it violates Kant's categorical imperative and the perfect duty not to harm others, which should be upheld at all times.
Explanation:Kantian Ethics and Perfect Duties
From a Kantian ethical perspective, the dilemma presented involves a conflict between perfect duties: the duty not to harm or kill an innocent person and the duty to prevent harm to others. Kant's categorical imperative demands that one acts only according to maxims that could be universalized without contradiction. Thus, according to Kantian ethics, one should never commit an act that couldn't be willed to become a universal law, such as killing an innocent person; even under dire circumstances such as threats to a larger group. Kantian moral theory holds that moral rules are absolute, meaning that some actions are always wrong, regardless of their consequences.
In the scenario where a diabolical villain threatens to blow up a city unless an innocent person is killed, a Kantian would argue against killing the innocent person. This is because Kant believed that taking an innocent life cannot be moral under any circumstances. It is a perfect duty to not kill, one that must be upheld at all times. To do otherwise would contradict the very essence of moral law as per Kant's philosophy. Moreover, such an act would set a precedent that would erode trust and civilized life, as it would make the respect for an individual's right to life conditional and negotiable.
Ultimately, from a Kantian viewpoint, even in the face of severe consequences, committing an immoral act, such as killing an innocent person, cannot be justified. Moral actions must remain consistent with the imperative of universalizability, and no circumstances can justify the infringement of a perfect duty.