New York City's Charter authorized the NYC 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 publicc water supply. A suit wass brought to enjoin the carrying out of this program on the grounds that it was unconstitutional and that the money could not be spent to carry out such a program in the 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 iimposed mmedication on children without their consent; and fluoridation was or may be dangerous to health. Was the Codes provision Valid? USE THE IRAC METHOD TO RESPOND TO THIS QUESTION (Paduano v. City of New York, 257 N.Y.S.2d 531) (This is the actual case. Read it to understand how the court worked through the issue. The assignmnent still calls for you to use IRAC. ISSUE: Is a code valid/consitutional where the bovernment provides fluoridation to the water supply without the consent of the public in an effort to reduce tooth decay? (maybe this is a good issue) (Or maybe you can state it differently)

issue ?

RULE ?

ANALYSIS?

CONCLUSION?