Us V Timbersnake Court Opinion

...

On the other hand the United States was arguing that according to the Necessary and Proper clause in Article I Section 8 of the Constitution, broad use of power is within their authority. The United States is also arguing that the case should not be issued a ruling by the Supreme Court because Fetty Wapy does not have standing in the case seeing as he had never fished on Lake Michigan or the Chicago Canal.

Discussion of Legal Principles

In order to decide on the case the Court must first decide if the party bringing the case, Mr. Fetty Wapy, has standing. A previous case, Lujan v Defenders of Wildlife (1992) developed a standard test for standing. The test involves the following criteria, the accusing party must have sustained a concrete injury or be at risk of imminent danger, this injury must be traceable to the offending party, and a favorable decision by the courts must be able to provide a remedy. It is the opinion of the court that Fetty Wapy does not have standing in this case. Mr. Wapy has never fished or even been to Lake Michigan and therefore he has not and will not sustain any kind of concrete injury if the United States decides to release the biotoxin into the water. There is an argument made that he has been thinking of fishing in Lake Michigan, and may even have some plans to go. However this is not concrete enough to establish standing since it is very easy to break plans and the risk of imminent danger is not guaranteed. Usually the case would end here seeing as the court cannot issue a ruling, however for the purpose of Prof. Evans’ exam, the Court will continue to address all legal principles present in the case.

The Necessary and Proper Clause in Article I, Section 8 of the constitution states that Congress has the power to make all laws that are necessary and proper to carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this constitution in the government of the United States. The case McCulloch v Maryland (1819) clears up some of the haziness with the term necessary and proper by establishing precedent for allowing congressional action if it is deemed crucial or useful. This interpretation of crucial or useful is much less strict than the terminology necessary and proper. Since the issue of Asian Carp directly affects commerce because if they reach the Great Lakes ecosystem, its $7billion commercial and sport fishing industry would be harmed, it is only logical to assume that Congress has the power the protect the lakes.

Conclusion

In conclusion, even though the Court would like to rule in favor of the United States to put the issue to rest once and for all, it is not in their ability to do so. It is well within the authority of the Congress to order the use of a biotoxin retenone to handle the situation. However, because Mr. Wapy does not have standing the Court is unable to issue a ruling.

...