Case: New State Ice v. Leibman

i need to answer the below questions

Helpful links:

Link: https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/285/262/

Link: https://www.coursehero.com/u/file/56166763/Stephen-R-C-Hicks-David-Kelley-Readings-for-Logical-Analysis-Second-Edition-W-W-Norton-Co/#doc/qa

Brandeis's overall conclusion is that the State of Oklahoma

was justified in not allowing Liebmann to manufacture ice

for sale. To support this conclusion he argues three points:

(i) That prohibiting competition in this case was to the

public's welfare;

(ii) That there are precedents for states' creating monopolies

as public utilities;

(iii) That the State's action does not violate the Fourteenth

Amendment.

Here is a reconstruction of his argument in support of (i):

The State's function is to promote the public welfare.

It is to the public's welfare not to have waste, expensive products,

or poor service.

So the State should not to allow waste, expensive products, or

poor service.

Sometimes competition leads to waste, expensive products, or

poor service.

So sometimes the State should not to allow competition.

Competition in the ice business in Oklahoma led to waste and

poor service.

Therefore, it was legitimate for the State of Oklahoma not to

allow competition in the ice business.

For each of the premises in this argument, determine

whether Brandeis assumes its truth or provides an argument

for it. And for those premises he argues for, diagram the

arguments.

2. "The public welfare" is the key phrase in Brandeis's argument.

Does he offer a definition of it, or list the criteria by

which we can tell what is or is not to the public's welfare?

3. Brandeis discusses the Fourteenth Amendment to the Federal

Constitution in paragraphs 3, 8, 9, and 22-27. He argues

against interpreting the Fourteenth Amendment as giving an

individual an "absolute" right to engage in business. Write an

short paragraph summarizing how Brandeis interprets the

Fourteenth Amendment. Under what circumstances does he

argue that the right can be limited?

4. Has Brandeis argued successfully that the State of Oklahoma

neither abridged Liebmann's privileges or immunities, nor

deprived him of liberty or