1. Thesis: By applying textual and constructive canons to the Endangered Species Act, it is clear
Leg/Reg
#41 that Congress intended to protect endangered species from indirect harm, such as timber harvesting.
2. Canons:
A) It is unclear whether the meaning of the phrase “to harm” can include indirect conduct, one can look at §1 to gain a better understanding of the statutory purpose;
B) In the case of statutory ambiguity, the purpose clause can be a valuable source of insight into the intent of the legislature;
C) The purpose clause states that the statute was created to protect the land that wildlife depends on by eliminating behavior that can negatively impact them. The harm described in §3 included conduct that modifies the habitat of wildlife, impairing essential behaviors species depend on; …show more content…
The purpose of the act is to protect wildlife and reading the statute in a literal manner would exclude ways they are endangered;
D) The absurdity rule should only be applied when no reasonable person would have meant the plain meaning;
E) The landowners assert that the plain meaning interpretation of “to take” to only mean direct injury is a reasonable way for Congress to limit overreaching by government agencies.
3. Conclusion: I rule in favor of the government that timber harvesting would fall under the Endangered Species Act. The objection to the Expressio Unius canon and the purpose clause of the legislation, it is reasonable to conclude that Congress did not intend to exclude indirect methods of harm and may have failed to realize this alternative conduct when drafting
Leg/Reg
#41 that Congress intended to protect endangered species from indirect harm, such as timber harvesting.
2. Canons:
A) It is unclear whether the meaning of the phrase “to harm” can include indirect conduct, one can look at §1 to gain a better understanding of the statutory purpose;
B) In the case of statutory ambiguity, the purpose clause can be a valuable source of insight into the intent of the legislature;
C) The purpose clause states that the statute was created to protect the land that wildlife depends on by eliminating behavior that can negatively impact them. The harm described in §3 included conduct that modifies the habitat of wildlife, impairing essential behaviors species depend on; …show more content…
The purpose of the act is to protect wildlife and reading the statute in a literal manner would exclude ways they are endangered;
D) The absurdity rule should only be applied when no reasonable person would have meant the plain meaning;
E) The landowners assert that the plain meaning interpretation of “to take” to only mean direct injury is a reasonable way for Congress to limit overreaching by government agencies.
3. Conclusion: I rule in favor of the government that timber harvesting would fall under the Endangered Species Act. The objection to the Expressio Unius canon and the purpose clause of the legislation, it is reasonable to conclude that Congress did not intend to exclude indirect methods of harm and may have failed to realize this alternative conduct when drafting