fandomhigh | 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!]

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

"I think you'd be surprised how independent States can be and how loud they can be if the government tried to overstep them," Lee said but it was hard to argue this now. "Any new amendments to the Constitution would be met by a lot of opposition. No one agrees on everything."

Annette smiled. She really had no room to talk on this subject because she just wasn't familiar. And Lee? He talked pretty dang good. "You're right. No one does agree on everything. But a comfortable familiar would have to be met and agreed upon, and yes, I imagine this would take time."

"It would take time," Lee agreed. "But, what's so wrong with the environment that we need new amendments? The Constitution's been around for a long time and the environment's still here. Something's working."

"I would agree with that, but on that same note, there is always room for improvement. Our human activities are not always so pure."

"And what if your amendments make things worse?" Lee asked.

"There's the half chance they won't," Annette said.

"True," Lee admitted. "I kind of think amendments are a good idea so you win. This Constitution is kind of old and probably needs reworking."

Annette laughed. "Well, I won't consider myself winning. Just us coming to a healthy conclusion. Thank you, Lee."

"No problem," Lee said and grinned. "It's hard to argue with someone who wants what I would want if I were in that position."

"You gave me good reasons for a healthy debate, and that I enjoyed and appreciated."

Lawyering Up, Week 4: Wed, Period 2 (1/30)

Re: Classwork (1/30/08)

Re: Classwork (1/30/08)

Re: Classwork (1/30/08)

Re: Classwork (1/30/08)

Re: Classwork (1/30/08)

Re: Classwork (1/30/08)

Re: Classwork (1/30/08)

Re: Classwork (1/30/08)

Re: Classwork (1/30/08)

Re: Classwork (1/30/08)