...
  • 主题
高级搜索  >
历史搜索 清空历史
首页> 外文期刊>Journal of Natural Resources & Environmental Law >HEY BETSY, SEW ON ANOTHER STAR: A COMMENT ON WISCONSIN V. EPA
【24h】

HEY BETSY, SEW ON ANOTHER STAR: A COMMENT ON WISCONSIN V. EPA

机译：嘿贝蒂，缝在另一颗星上：关于威斯康星诉EPA的评论

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           
页面导航
  • 摘要
  • 著录项
  • 相似文献
  • 相关主题

摘要

In Wisconsin v. EPA, the federal government took regulatory powers out of the hands of Wisconsin and gave these powers to the Mole Lake Band. This action should have been held impermissible under the Constitution of the United States and under the court's precedent on this issue. First, the court's application of the Equal Footing Doctrine to Indian tribes is an unconstitutional stretch of the federal government's power. The Commerce Clause gives the federal government the right to regulate the country's navigable waterways, however, it does not give it the power to allocate these duties to sovereign bodies other than states. Also, the Seventh Circuit extends the precedent set forth in Montana without giving a reasonable explanation for doing so. Montana allowed Indian tribes to regulate activities on their reservation that reasonably could affect the welfare of the tribe, but did not allow tribes to regulate off-reservation activities. Wisconsin v. EPA extends this regulatory power to off-reservation activities that may affect the welfare of the tribe, and does so with little thought to the ramifications of such a decision. With TAS status, tribes may be able to block proposed industry in their home state, which could slow progress in economic and social welfare. Indian tribes now may hold a significant regulatory function of the states, with few of the responsibilities that come with this power. The court's decision in Wisconsin v. EPA has spawned several predictions concerning the case's ramifications. Obviously, it is highly likely that the number of TAS applications will increase in light of the relatively simple "inherent authority" test set out in Montana and adopted in Wisconsin v. EPA. To prove inherent authority under the test, a tribe must only show the EPA that there are navigable waters on their reservation, that these watersheds benefit the tribe, and that harm to the water would have a "serious and substantial effect on the health and welfare of the tribe." The court's decision also seems to have nearly eliminated a state's ability to oppose a TAS application, and at least one commentator feels that a state's ability to overturn a TAS status grant has been nearly eliminated. This result undermines the sovereignty of the fifty states and could pose a threat to each state's individual development.
机译：在威斯康星州诉EPA案中，联邦政府从威斯康星州手中夺走了监管权，并将这些权力交给了Mo鼠湖乐队。根据美国宪法和法院在此问题上的判例，本来应该禁止该行动。首先，法院对印第安部落适用平等立足原则是联邦政府权力的违宪延伸。 《商务条款》赋予联邦政府管理该国通航水道的权利，但是，它没有赋予其将这些职责分配给除州以外的其他主权机构的权力。同样，第七巡回法院扩展了蒙大纳州提出的先例，但没有给出合理的解释。蒙大拿州允许印第安部落在其保留地上规范可能会影响部落福利的活动，但不允许部落在非保留地上规范活动。威斯康星州诉EPA案将这一管理权力扩展到了可能影响部落福利的非保留活动，而这样做却没有考虑到这一决定的后果。在拥有TAS地位的情况下，部落可能能够在自己的州阻止拟议的产业，这可能会减慢经济和社会福利的进展。现在，印第安部落可能在各州中发挥着重要的监管作用，而这种权力所承担的责任却很少。法院在威斯康星州诉EPA案中的裁决产生了有关该案后果的若干预测。显然，鉴于蒙大拿州提出并在威斯康星州诉EPA案中采用的相对简单的“固有权限”测试，TAS应用程序的数量很有可能会增加。为了证明测试中固有的权威性，一个部落只能向EPA证明其保留有通航水域，这些流域对部落有利，并且对水的损害将对健康和福利产生“严重而实质性的影响”。部落的。”法院的判决似乎也几乎消除了该州反对TAS申请的能力，至少有一位评论员认为，该州推翻TAS地位补助金的能力已被几乎消除。这一结果破坏了五十个州的主权，并可能对每个州的个人发展构成威胁。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱：kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备：11010802029741号 ICP备案号：京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有

  • 客服微信

  • 服务号