West Virginia is a legitimate state of the United State of America. Its legislature is in charge of formulating regulations that either promote or ban certain products within its jurisdiction. Although the West Virginia legislature cannot enact any law without probable cause and prove that necessitates a ban. In this case, it is predetermined that EPI’s window cleaning products has one of its ingredients being toxic to humans and causes damages to the interior of the building. West Virginia legislature is the general public’s protector and defender; it is mandated and given authority to enact laws that ban products and services that are a threat to the public’s health and property. Therefore, West Virginia legislature is legally and constitutionally authorized to enact the law that bans OG processes such as the EPI’s window cleaners as provided in article 1, section 8 of the United States Constitution that it has to ascertain United States’ overall welfare (“The 1st Article of the U.S. Constitution,” n.d.). Nonetheless, there are certain requirements that OG operations must meet under the U.S Code of Federal Regulations 3175.118 – Gas chromatograph requirements (“43 CFR 3175.118,” n.d.). Enactment of these laws by the legislature involves, raising a bill to ban EPI’s window cleaning products in the House of Representatives and the Senate and then pass it by presenting it to the president for approval through signing it then it legally becomes a law (“Enactment of a Law,” n.d.). Thereafter, the courts will use this law to ban these products.
The Virginia courts will argue with regards to the Consumer Product Safety Act that EPI’s window cleaners’ ingredient from sunflower which is found to be toxic is harmful to human health and therefore it is a threat to public health. To ensure the general public health and safety, the court will uphold the ban on these products as a way of promoting human rights since each and every citizen is entitled to use of healthy and safe products or services. Moreover, due to the risk of property destruction caused by these products the courts will defiantly uphold their ban with its argument based on Consumer Product Safety Act which requires that consumers are provided with high-quality products that benefit them positively and not causing destruction or loses (“SB 7 Text,” n.d.). This law protects consumers from exploitation from producers or manufacturers, therefore the court will stick to this law for the public good. For instance, in this scenario, the courts will argue that according to the Consumer Product Safety Act, EPI as the manufacturer is entitled to produce safe and healthy products that satisfy the consumers efficiently (“SB 7 Text,” n.d.). Failure to abide by these results to suspension or complete ban or termination of production of EPI’s window cleaning products
In essence, the restriction imposed on private business activities is fair if only the business is proven to be in violation of the law. The legislature and the courts only enact a law that has a solid probable cause that is proved. For instance, in this case, it is predetermined that EPI’s window cleaners have one of its ingredients that are toxic to humans and causes damages to property. It will be fair to ban these products for the sake of the health and safety of the public at large. Most private businesses such as EPI are more concerned with making profits rather than focusing on the quality of their products to ensure that it meets the health and safety standards required. It is, therefore, justifiable to ban unhealthy and unsafe products from such private business so as to ensure the well-being and safety of the general public.