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.

  • Pons_Aelius
    link
    fedilink
    -11
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    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…

    • Carighan Maconar
      link
      English
      261 year ago

      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.

      • catreadingabook
        link
        fedilink
        81 year ago

        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.

        • @AA5B
          link
          English
          1
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          Right. I certainly hope the case succeeds, but cants see how it can be based n Constitutional grounds. Montana is an anomaly because their Constitution did explicitly protect the environment

          It seems like you’d have better luck arguing the EPA isn’t doing a sufficient job, or something

      • @UFO64
        link
        English
        01 year ago

        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.

        • DMmeYourNudes
          link
          English
          41 year ago

          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.

          • @UFO64
            link
            English
            01 year ago

            They are supposed to, but it happens. There is a reason we have appeals courts stranger.

            • DMmeYourNudes
              link
              English
              11 year ago

              the point of those courts is to decide what is or is not free speech.

              • @UFO64
                link
                English
                01 year ago

                Go read original post, this is literally what I am saying.

                • DMmeYourNudes
                  link
                  English
                  11 year ago

                  you’re just making conjecture about how the US denies people free speech.

                  • @UFO64
                    link
                    English
                    01 year ago

                    I’m citing it happens, something you yourself have agreed with.

    • DMmeYourNudes
      link
      English
      81 year ago

      This isn’t a US issue. No one’s Constitution can guarantee this.