http://1petrelli1.livejournal.com/ (![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png)
1petrelli1.livejournal.com) wrote in ![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png)
fandomhigh2008-01-29 11:49 pm
1petrelli1.livejournal.com) wrote in fandomhigh2008-01-29 11:49 pm
Entry tags:
Lawyering Up, Week 4: Wed, Period 2 (1/30)
Another class, another set of packets.
"Today we'll be discussing Environmental Law," Nathan said. "We like having clean air to breathe, water to drink, and food that won't kill us. Environmental law is how we make that happen.
"Environmental law has a wide scope," Nathan continued. "It could involve trying to create a law to protect a rare species, it could involve trying to bring a civil lawsuit against a company that poisoned your water supply. There is even environmental racism. That's when the 'not in my backyard' syndrome meets 'money talks.' Which means the environmentally harmful actions happen in places where those who live there don't have a political voice due to their social status and/or skin color.
"We can probably all agree that we want our environment to be safe to interact with," Nathan said. "But can we do that and not hurt our economy? Or without creating laws that are too broad in scope? Some wonder if we're allowed to argue it at all.
"Which brings us to today's exercise." Nathan indicated the last part of the handouts. "Environmental law and the Constitution. Does the Constitution as it stands now give us the strength to pass laws with the goal of protecting the environment? Or do we need to come up with new ways, such as an amendment that specifies a clean environment as being a fundamental right?
"Pair up," Nathan said. "One of you take a position that says the Constitution is fine, the other takes the position that it needs changing. Argue your case. See if you can change your partner's mind. I'll be here if there's any questions."
[ooc: OCD is up! Have at it!]
"Today we'll be discussing Environmental Law," Nathan said. "We like having clean air to breathe, water to drink, and food that won't kill us. Environmental law is how we make that happen.
"Environmental law has a wide scope," Nathan continued. "It could involve trying to create a law to protect a rare species, it could involve trying to bring a civil lawsuit against a company that poisoned your water supply. There is even environmental racism. That's when the 'not in my backyard' syndrome meets 'money talks.' Which means the environmentally harmful actions happen in places where those who live there don't have a political voice due to their social status and/or skin color.
"We can probably all agree that we want our environment to be safe to interact with," Nathan said. "But can we do that and not hurt our economy? Or without creating laws that are too broad in scope? Some wonder if we're allowed to argue it at all.
"Which brings us to today's exercise." Nathan indicated the last part of the handouts. "Environmental law and the Constitution. Does the Constitution as it stands now give us the strength to pass laws with the goal of protecting the environment? Or do we need to come up with new ways, such as an amendment that specifies a clean environment as being a fundamental right?
"Pair up," Nathan said. "One of you take a position that says the Constitution is fine, the other takes the position that it needs changing. Argue your case. See if you can change your partner's mind. I'll be here if there's any questions."
[ooc: OCD is up! Have at it!]
Re: During the Lecture (1/30/08)
Re: During the Lecture (1/30/08)
Re: During the Lecture (1/30/08)
Re: During the Lecture (1/30/08)
Re: During the Lecture (1/30/08)
Re: During the Lecture (1/30/08)
Re: During the Lecture (1/30/08)
Re: During the Lecture (1/30/08)
Re: During the Lecture (1/30/08)
Re: During the Lecture (1/30/08)
Re: During the Lecture (1/30/08)