02/28/2001 Env Bd Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Search

Weed Laws Article on Landscaping (John Marshall Law Review) Page 19 of 27 2. Landscaping as Religion Natural landscaping, for some, can be a constitutionally protected form of religious practice. Courts essentially recognize religious practices subjectively, the only test being whether the individual asserts his belief in good faith and that belief could arguably be religious.142 Therefore, not only would the established Native American religions 143 and Eastern religions 144 which preach the oneness of humankind and Nature be entitled to First Amendment protection for natural landscaping, but those who hold "nontraditional" religious beliefs would also be entitled to such protection. Certainly, the adherents of Deep Ecology 145 would be entitled to First Amendment protection for natural landscaping practices. Beyond First Amendment protection to these less - common religions, the fundamental teachings of the Bible and Judeo - Christian theology encourage a stewardship approach to humankind's interaction with Nature.146 Vice President Gore narrows the focus and strongly supports the premise that traditional Judeo- Christian religions counsel for a harmonic relationship between humankind and Nature 147 Enforcement of weed laws can be an impediment to the free exercise of these religions. Whatever protection the Constitution affords that free exercise would apply to the practice of natural landscaping for those individuals engaged in it as a result of or in furtherance of their religion.148 B. Weed Laws as Unconstitutionally Vague Even if not a constitutionally protected fundamental right, natural landscaping can escape attack from out -dated weed laws because such laws generally do not define the term "weed" and are, therefore, unconstitutionally vague. The Chicago Ordinance, like many, merely outlaws "weeds" or an accumulation of weeds.149 As such, these laws provide a subjective and relative standard, which violates the Due Process Clause. A law is void for vagueness where it does not clearly define what it prohibits.l5o. A law is void on its face if it is "perfectly vague "; to sustain the challenge the statute must be one which provides no "ascertainable standard for inclusion or exclusion." 1$1 Weed laws that fail to define "weed" suffer from such a constitutional infirmity. ) 52 The term "weed," where not statutorily defined, must be ascribed its dictionary definition. But "what is a weed ?" is a vague and subjective determination. Its meaning varies depending on who is applying the definition and where the subject plant is located in relation to other "desired" plants. Thus a "weed" to a farmer may be a rose or iris growing in his corn or wheat field. But a rose or iris is not a "weed" to the conventional gardener, who would cite corn or wheat growing in his flower bed as "weeds." 153 As Justice Douglas wrote: "Words which are vague and fluid http: / /www.epa.gov /glnpo /greenacres /weedlaws /JMLR.html 2/22/01