This paper is aimed at clarifying the role of the US Supreme Court in explaining federal laws. Its interpretation on federal issues is considered final.
Interpretation of Navigable Waters by the US Supreme Court. I would like to agree with the Supreme Court for overruling the Districts and Appeal courts’ ruling that the gravel and sand pits contain navigable waters. According to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), navigable water refers to the interstate lakes, rivers and streams that are used by the interstate travelers for fishing and recreation. Under the federal laws, for a water body to be regarded as navigable it must be in use. Therefore, I would like to say that the US Army Corps were not right to claim that the abandoned gravel pits inhabited by the migratory birds are a navigable area. This is because this area is not in use – it is abandoned. It also lies squarely in the state of Illinois making it not being shared by any other state.
This refers to the principles that determine what is good or wrong on business. Even if the principle goal of any business is to make the profit, many investors look forward to optimize their profit at the expense of other people within their environment. It is good for a business corporation to act ethically at all times. In line with the environmental conservation, investors should act responsibly while taking care of the environment. According to environmental ethics, the investors should, first of all, carry out an environmental impact assessment to ensure that their projects do not have negatively impact on the surrounding.
Get a price quote:
Therefore, in this context, the solid waste agency acted unethically by releasing wastes to the animal habitats. This is against the UNCP’s environmental law and the US Environmental Law that advocates for environmental conservation. I, therefore, suggest that a legal action should be taken against it to repair the damages caused and operate responsibly.
Business should not be allowed to exist without the government’s involvement. The government should be involved in business both directly and indirectly. This can be done through legal controls price regulations and environmental conservation. The government should ensure that firms conserve the environment in order to be able to achieve a sustainable development. Therefore, the US government’s involvement in business should not be viewed as an unnecessary red tape procedure aimed at excluding others from free trade, but for creating a healthy business environment free and open for all.
In conclusion, I would like to commend the independent judicial system in the USA in which the state law is professionally managed and interpreted. In this context, I would accept that this interpretation was dully done without any organ overstepping its legal mandate.