The State Of Eastland 's Waste Disposal Regulation

The majority opinion of the Supreme Court case Tinker v. Des Moines can be reasoned

The relationship between States and their localities in many cases is strained. State government gives their local governments life, they create the laws for them. However, throughout history, state governments have not treated their localities as they suppose to. That is why the National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL) stated on the state-local relation “Legislators should place a higher priority on state-local issues than has been done in the past. The time has come to change their attitude toward local governments.” They want the state governments to see localities as partners in the federal system.

Issue: The issue in this case is whether the state violated the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment and the Fourteenth Amendment.

In the Court’s highly fragmented decision, the justices attempted to define a proper balance of and boundary between federal and state authority: by arguing that state action constituted only those acts sanctioned by the state’s laws and by dismissing Section 20 for vagueness, the major block of dissenters suggested that the risk posed to state autonomy by federal intervention was too great; by recognizing the defendants’ actions as those perpetrated “under color of law” and by creating a “willful” test for acts under Section 20, the majority Opinion affirmed the federal government’s interest in protecting the rights of citizens from abuse by state authority, but provided it with a tenuous means for defending those liberties.

A controversy arose between Ogden, who had obtained the license from Fulton and Livingston, and Gibbons, who had obtained his license through the United States government. Ogden petitioned the New York Court to “enjoin” Gibbons, his formal partner, from continuing with this business in that state. The Court favored Ogden and granted the injunction and Gibbons appealed to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court upheld the right for Congress to have vast powers. According to the Supreme Court, Congress can regulate who can enter into a monopoly and this case made a distinction between interstate and intrastate within a state. Although the federal government has not been specifically delegated the power to regulate commerce within a certain state that does not mean that the federal government cannot regulate a states commerce. When the Commerce Clause has a broad interpretation, intrastate regulations are often included. Commerce is more than just buying or selling; it is intercoursing, which according to this case does include such stipulations as navigation. Interpreting commerce in a broad sense has thus established what is known as a Federal police power. Police powers refer to or identify the inherent authority of the state government to regulate individually liberty, freedom for health and welfare and safety. The Federal government does not have police power, but it can be seen as evidence in this case how the Federal

In Roger B. Taney's decision in the 1837 Charles River Bridge Case, business was overruled by the rights of the community and the individual, or was it? State's right intervention in commerce was set as a precedent by Taney’s decision despite is claim of support for the liberties of

Large businesses often can maneuver their way through the system very well due to the extremely large amounts of money then have. These companies have been known to use harmful production techniques that destroy our national resources and in some cases our own citizens and are not legally implicated. In the case of “Madison v. Ducktown, Sulphur, Copper & Iron Co.”, a large mining company had been damaging the air quality, destroy the local environment, and made several properties unlivable through the system of their mining.

Roberts, J. (2011). A Brief History of Waste Regulation in the United States and Oklahoma. Retrieved from http://www.deq.state.ok.us/lpdnew/wastehistory/wastehistory.htm

91st St. Joint Venture, 330 Md. 620 (1993), the Court of Appeals, in a per curiam order, vacated an interlocutory injunction ordered by the Circuit Court for Baltimore City, while the same parties were litigating the same issues in the Circuit Court for Worcester County. 91st st. Joint Venture, 330 Md. at 623. In that case, the State Department of Natural Resources (“DNR”) filed an action to enjoin the defendants from constructing a gazebo in a protected area in Ocean City, Maryland. Id. at 623-24. Rather than respond to the action, the defendants filed a complaint in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City seeking declaratory and injunctive relief. Id. at 624. The Circuit Court for Baltimore City, then, issued an injunction prohibiting the DNR from enforcing their regulations and proceeding with the action in Worcester County. Id. at

City of New London ruled on an infamous eminent domain issue redefining “public use” as including government economic development measures. The City of New London approved a development project that would destroy hundreds of homes in the name of monetary gain and, what the state would call, economic development. The state interests are creating 1,000 plus jobs, increase tax revenue, and revitalizing the city’s economy as a response to the Federal Government’s condemnation of a Naval Undersea Warfare Center, which employed a majority of the city’s jobs. One resident filed suit claiming the city’s actions violated the Fifth Amendment’s scope “public use.” The city’s plans went beyond condemning property for a general use that was actually open to the public, but instead condemned private land to sell to another private individual developer. The Court ruled that because the city had a carefully drawn plan and the precedent defining “public use” is broad, the city may deprive one citizen of property rights for a more productive reason of another

This case involves a dispute over whether the laws of North Montana, South Montana, or Old York should be applied. Old York and North Montana have laws that prevent insurance companies from putting provisions in their insurance contracts that prohibit the stacking of multiple insurance claims for a single incident. In contrast, South Montana specifically allows such provisions. This Court ultimately concludes that Old York’s law should apply in this case because this dispute is one over a contract and the place of contracting is Old York. Defendants argue that the public policy exception should apply, but this Court rejects this argument because the Old York law is not fundamentally against the public policy of this state.

The decision of the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals should be affirmed. The state of Eastland’s waste disposal regulation is neither discriminatory nor protectionist. Historically, businesses and professionals know that licensing requirements and authority belongs solely to states and local governments. A state government does not violate the commerce clause when it sets licensing requirements for incineration and interment of fetal tissues pursuant to its autonomy and police powers in carrying out local activities that has always been its traditional functions to ensure the health and safety of its citizens. Also, a state acts legitimately and fairly when having properly taxed its citizens towards the provision of a safe means of disposal of

Given that the legislation was “passed from other motives,” the Court held that the state could promote public health in a less restrictive manner, for example by inspecting premises and requiring that washrooms be

Waste Management, Inc., incorporated in 1968, had become a leader in the industry of waste management services ranging from industrial operations to curbside collection. This company had become synonymous with many different kinds of disposal services that allowed for the company to grow and grow with a solid base over the course of twenty-eight years. Finally in 1996, the company reported total assets of almost $20 billion with net income close to $200 million. However, even with this growth and solid base, the company was feeling competitive pressures and net income was on the decline.

The Generation of hazardous waste by the human activities increase the risk of the damage to the environment and the human health. These create a very negative impact if not disposed properly. In the state of Illinois the implementation of the Federal Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) is referred to as hazardous waste. This act consists of the changes to the Solid Waste Disposal Act of 1956 and signed into the law of 1976. The regulations related to the implementation of