In the same week large swaths of the US were under extreme heat warnings, Joe Biden’s Justice Department filed its most recent motion to dismiss a landmark climate case by arguing that nothing in the Constitution guarantees the right to a secure climate.
They’re right though. There is nothing in the US constitution that guarantees the right to a healthy environment.
Cool that it isn’t stopping them from putting a lot of climate action in motion.
What a dumb article.
Not only is there nothing in the constitution to prevent them from adding to it, the forefathers urged us to do so, and created systems for exactly that reason. The forefathers weren’t dummies, they were smart guys. That’s why they created something that is supposed to be a living document.
While we’re at it let’s give everyone a right to world peace.
That filing came as President Joe Biden has refused repeated calls to declare a climate emergency, and as his administration backed a court case designed to accelerate the construction of a massive fossil gas pipeline, despite scientists’ climate warnings. Biden’s administration has also declared that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s scientific report about climate change “does not present sufficient cause” to halt a massive expansion of fossil fuel drilling.
Always fun to see liberals lie by omission. Look at all that “action”. It surely is just a coincidence that the Biden admin keeps aggressively fighting against climate change lawsuits in court.
The rules in the Constitution are only relevant so far as they are within the ability of the government to provide. Outlawing slavery, the right to free speech, the right to vote, these can all be provided and protected by the government. The global climate can only be protected by ensuing that the rest of the world does not ruin the climate, in other words, the US would have to invade any country that endangers the climate for is citizens to ensure that right. This is why the Constitution does not provide he right to travel anywhere outside of US borders either.
the US would have to invade any country that endangers the climate for is citizens to ensure that right.
The US has invaded several countries to ensure their citizens have the right to cheap oil, which is also not covered in the constitution.
And you’ve proven my point.
No. The complete opposite of your point.
It is not in the constitution, so it can’t be done - your point.
I am saying that the US has done things outside the constitution and in breach of international law to directly and materially aid their citizens.
But this time it is different somehow…
It is not in the constitution, so it can’t be done - your point.
Actually they’re saying the opposite. It seems everyone else in this thread seems to misunderstand it the way you did, though. The actual issue is that there is no constitutional right because you cannot having this in the consititution because there’s no guarantee the US would be able to follow up on the right granted to its citizens.
E.g., as you said before, there is no constitutional right to cheap oil, either. The US gov can try to provide that, but they cannot guarantee they can provide that, hence they cannot grant it as a consititutional right.
I would rephrase it further. This is about the balance of powers in the government. The argument isn’t that we don’t have this right, it’s that it isn’t a Constitutional right.
Our existing Constitutional rights are more or less straightforward - “No one can prevent you from peacefully speaking your mind,” aside from exceptions like fraud and credible threats. The judicial branch, the court system, is responsible for stopping wrongdoers and overturning laws that violate those rights.
By contrast, the proposed right, “No one can prevent you from having a stable climate where you live,” is completely unenforceable by the courts.
The scope is too different: it’s unclear what actions and laws would be in violation of that right. Would you be infringing on your neighbor’s right to a stable climate because you drove your car to work when you could have ridden a bike? Is your city infringing on your right to a stable climate if it uses incandescent light bulbs in government offices, or fails to mandate solar panels on every roof?
The point being there is no Constitutional right to a stable climate because there’s not really a way to directly violate that right in a way that the courts can enforce. Instead, it needs to be a policy decision passed by legislation with specific rules and actions in mind. That’s a power reserved for Congress and not the courts.
By that logic, they cannot guarantee the freedom of speech either though. They can try very hard, and do their best to make amends for when it’s breached, but many people have been silenced illegally by the US government. They can try, but they cannot promise this fact.
I don’t see why one couldn’t apply the same to climate.
The US government will not jail you for exercising free speech. That’s what free speech is. The government can not censor free speech, and they do not. To protect your right to free speech, all the government needs to do is nothing.
This isn’t a US issue. No one’s Constitution can guarantee this.
The Constitution’s failure to provide protections for travel between countries does not preclude a right to travel internationally. Rather, the Constitution provides explicit protections for travel between states. While the Supreme Court has ruled that the government may reasonably restrict international travel, the position remains somewhat controversial among scholars and still requires due process of law.
Similarly, the Constitution is not limited to the rights a government can provide. Indeed, many of the rights enumerated restrict government action. For example, the right to free expression is, at its core, the right to be free of government interference with speech. The right to have soldiers not quartered in one’s home is a mandate that the government NOT do something.
A right to a secure climate might seem silly because it’s something that the government cannot provide in its entirety, but a Constitutional right to an inhabitable environment would not necessarily require extraterritorial action. If the right were understood to cover only those actions and inactions that fell within the United States’ sovereign power, then it would only obligate the government to act within the scope of its power.
the US would have to invade any country that endangers the climate for is citizens to ensure that right.
Well, that depends on what we think about climate change. If we think the climat change will destroy the humanity then this seems to be justifiable.
Justifiable or not, it’s still not something that is in the control of the government exclusively.
I mean…it doesn’t
Who thinks it does? What a silly idea
Correct, the constitution does not literally call out the right to a stable climate, however it’s kinda hard to make good on any other constitutional right if populations being culled by extreme heat becomes the new worldwide norm.
Yes, we should take aggressive action to eliminate every trace of fossil fuels currently in use.
But also, bringing legal action to enforce a law that pretty plainly doesn’t exist doesn’t do anyone any good.
Cool, but don’t try to make the legal argument that the Constitution says so and so when it doesn’t. It’s a giant waste of time and money.
Yeah the declaration of independence mentioned a few things like the rights of Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness, all of which are impossible if the oceans are boiling. These politicians have failed in their duties.
That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government
Did they even track and measure weather anywhere close to what we have now?
Following centuries old doctorines is still weird to me
Breaking news: Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness does not include a right to a liveable environment.
(yes I know this is from the DOI, not the constitution, and has no legal force)
How can one live without a stable environment?
Apparently, the right to life and the right to keep living are two very different things to the justice department.
Then again, why are we surprised when a life spent is solitary confinement does not meet the definition of “cruel and unusual punishment” for the same group.
Uncomfortably.
deleted by creator
Apparently right to life is not right to live
To be fair, it’s the other side that has all that “right to life” hypocrisy.
Yeah, that’s true. Man, our options kinda suck.
The constitution gotta protect guns in case the king of England invades your F250 but heaven forbid you protect the environment.
If someone’s invading your guns have already failed.
Very progressive
