> Clearly not the abstract "harms" asserted in the case ... > The clear intention of the law was to preserve the land from direct, articulable harm such as ch

> Clearly not the abstract "harms" asserted in the case ... > The clear intention of the law was to preserve the land from direct, articulable harm such as chemical dumping, clear cut mining, deforestation, etc etc etc I've read the Montana constitution and read up on the case. The points above are not clear to me. Is there something else your looking at that makes it clear to you?