Can't Chew Gum and Walk at the Same Time
Could either of you send me any notes you took from Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife on? I cannot take notes and talk to a professor at the same time.
Muchas gracias.
Muchas gracias.
This is a blog to talk about things collectivly in a non-classroom type setting in order to foster a greater appreciation for diverse intersts and views. Oh, and consideration is a bargained for exchange.
1 Comments:
Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife
Πs love wildlife. The Endangered Species Act protects wildlife. Every federal agency must make environmental reports about all of their activities. The Secretary of the Interior determined that this doesn’t apply to any activities outside the U.S. Πs didn’t like that, and they sue to change that determination. Πs allege a “procedural injury.” The ESA provides for a citizen-suit, but Scalia takes a crap on it: this is a constitutional standing case, not a prudential one. Πs have no injury in fact. Scalia is concerned about separation of powers—Congress shouldn’t have this kind of power over the executive branch. “To permit Congress to convert the undifferentiated public interest in executive officers’ compliance with the law into an ‘individual right’ vindicable in the courts is to permit Congress to transfer from the President to the courts the Chief Executive’s most important constitutional duty, to ‘take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed’ . . . .”
Kennedy’s concurrence points out that Congress could clarify exactly for what injury the claim is meant to address.
Scalia wanted to protect the power of the executive branch, while Kennedy wanted to protect the dignity of the courts.
Post a Comment
<< Home