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.
We should do that! It’s a great idea to add to and modify the document that shapes our rights.
I can think of three new amendments I’d want right away. But I can’t sue the government on the basis of laws that don’t exist.
I think the compromises they struck have put a lot of that wishful thinking out of reach.
They are also dead and thus very easy to speak in name of.
Just stop building politics around dead or nearly dead people. There are living ones to take care of.
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.
“Always fun to see liberals lie by omission.”
Always fun to see Lemmy comment sections get filled with more of this toxic crap.
That’s what defendants do!
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.
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
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.
They are supposed to, but it happens. There is a reason we have appeals courts stranger.
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.
I did not say that the US government does not provide protections beyond what the Constitution says, nor does any of the included things prove that it can not provide protections to freedom of expression, etc, inside of its own borders.
You suggested that to enforce a right to a stable climate would depend on the government’s ability to provide the framework of a stable climate worldwide. While global protections would certainly be ideal, a right to a stable climate could and would likely be construed as an obligation to provide the framework for climate friendly policies within its own borders. Whether the right exists or no (and it probably doesn’t,) its existence does not hinge on it being possible to apply it globally.
Though a technicality, the 1st amendment DOES apply globally. The U.S. government can’t restrict your speech because you happen to be in, say, Canada. They are under no obligation to protect you from Canada’s government or Canada’s laws, but they are obligated to refrain from restricting your speech themselves.
The difference between negative rights (government refrains from interfering and prevents other from interfering) and positive rights (government is required to provide something) is important.
There is no difference between saying what the government must or or must not do. Both require legislative support to protect the rights. This is about the governments ability to execute that legislative support. You can be a copyright holder in the US, but if someone outside the US steals your copyright or IP, there is fuck all the government can do about it directly. The government can ensure you have free speech in it’s jurisdiction, it can not ensure you have a liveable climate within its jurisdiction. That is why the Constitution does not protect that right. You cant go to Saudi Arabia to protest then have the US protect your free speech, that’s not a thing.
Funny, most rights scholars disagree! If you’re unfamiliar:
https://blog.libertasbella.com/negative-vs-positive-rights/
Can the U.S. government act to restrict your speech in Saudi Arabia, even with the Saudi government’s support? Answer is no, Constitutionally, because the government is bound to refrain from doing so. Me posting to a Canadian forum from Saudi Arabia (outside the U.S. jurisdiction entirely) is still protected speech from the perspective of the U.S. government.
Enforceability has nothing to do with the existence or non-existence of a right. Whether the government can hale a copyright violator into court for violating your copyright is immaterial… your right still exists. Similarly, if you kill someone and flee to a country with no extradition treaty, the rights of your victim do not cease to exist.
To be clear, I see no support for the right to a stable climate. But if one existed, it would not hinge on enforceability.
No one said the US can take actions on foreign soil. That is the opposite of what was said.
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.
Fair point - government can try to provide it, but can’t guarantee the result.
The US subsidizes the world’s demand for military and protection as well as the world’s healthcare. There’s no excuse, we could have this world fully renewable if we had the will to do so.
this is irrelevant. this isn’t about the US, this is about how the constitution works.
The Constitution also explicitly states that we have rights not enumerated in the Constitution.
That’s true I always forget about that.
I find penumbral reasoning compelling in its own right.
But the Ninth Amendment is express:
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
The difference here is that unenumerated rights can be added at a future date, and this right has not been added.
Unenumerated rights can become enumerated rights if they are added to the constitution. There is certainty surrounding enumerated rights, while unenumerated rights are uncertain.
There isn’t. That doesn’t mean that this isn’t a noble cause, but come on. There’s no point in using the Constitution as the deciding factor of all that is good.
Americans are utterly obsessed with their constitution. They treat it like a holy book, despite (and perhaps sometimes because of) the fact that it’s pretty much impossible to convince enough people to change these days, despite it also needing changes.
This is a legal proceeding and the constitution is the fundamental basis for legal precedence in the US.
The government’s argument is not that this right cannot exist but that it is not presently defined.
This is a legal proceeding and the constitution is the fundamental basis for legal precedence in the US.
Someone should tell that to the supreme court.
While I very much disagree with many SCOTUS interpretations, many of the legitimate justices throughout the years have successfully espoused this policy
The current Supreme Court being largely a cruel joke does not falsify this claim
Thanks.
I was going to say, that it’s not an environmental document and climate science was barely a thing when it was written. (meteorology was but not climate science as we know it).
Good to know that nobody will be held accountable for the end of the world.
Can you, for one moment, stop thinking about the earth and instead focus on the profits and shareholder interests? Dont be selfish
It won’t matter if the world is ending. In the mean time since you’re also contributing, start the blame there.
Yeah, that’s the spirit! Let’s all just blame ourselves for being born into a system which actively prevents you from choosing not to be a part of it! ^/s
But seriously though, individual action can be a little helpful and it’s worth doing the parts that aren’t an excessive cognitive load, but it’s much, much more effective to have government regulate environmental action. Choosing to compost your vegetable scraps is helpful, but it pales in comparison to the industrial yard 30 miles over burning guzzoline by the kiloliter like they’re in some sort of Mad Maxian hellscape.
That’s always been happening and its always been futile. We have major problems yet the focus is on everything but. We focus on hatred over insignificant bullshit and how we’re victimized because people don’t agree with every aspect of more mundane things. This presidential election we’ll put a senial old man, who we aren’t even sure runs the government, up against a sociopath who cares primarily about winning and little else, because we don’t want to admit that we might have been wrong about guns, sexuality, etc. Meanwhile the candidate that cares most about the environment doesn’t stand a chance because of one or two things we nitpick andsayy he’s wrong about, that he doesn’t fall into line with our collective and mutually shared toxic justifications for hatred of “the bad guys from the other party”. There’s a lot of various reasons, that are too many to mention, which arrived us to where we are with climate change and those reasons go back at least half a century. I think today, however, as a mob or a society or a community or whatever you want to call it, we’re the dumbest we’ve ever been and that’s what we are when the stakes are the highest and the problem is VERY immediate. We got here through a cult mentality of hate and justification of that by choosing to be victims. With respect to inaction on climate change, if it weren’t the political case, we would gave been using mostly nuclear power for the past 40 years. It wasn’t politicians or lobbyist that resisted when it was on the table, it was people influenced by pop culture, musicians, actors… the same shit as today, same sing being sung for the sane reason but withdifferent lyrics that fit the narrative at the time. There’s people here complaining that the people responsible for the end of the world aren’t held accountable and at the same time voting for what public bathrooms people use is more relevant than our literal survival. If that doesn’t imply that we are a collective pack of idiots, then I’m a 10 foot tall wizard with a 16 inch penis.
I agree with you in some ways, but I think there’s a communication barrier here. In short, yes, we need to be united in our approach and we need to focus our efforts in the areas that matter most, but individual action is not a united front; it’s the opposite.
We’ve solved other problems through collective action. The climate accords resulted in the Montreal Protocol, which resulted in bans on freely releasing ozone-depleting chemicals like CFCs. This ban resulted in a resounding success–the hole in the ozone over Antarctica, which had been growing rapidly and threatened to leave us with much less protection from solar radiation, has now basically recovered to pre-industrial levels.
We need government action, and we as a people need to hold our governments accountable to these demands. That means demanding that corporations must implement effective strategies to reduce emissions and resource usage in general. It also means individuals must be pressured towards these changes, but that can only work if it’s economically feasible for the average person. I’m in my mid-20s working full time and I can’t even afford housing for myself, nor could I find a modest, truly eco-friendly home if I wanted to. How am I supposed to dedicate the energy to find more eco-friendly options when they’re sparse, poorly supported or actively resisted by the structure of society, and most of my energy is already taken up just fighting to survive at all?
Are you really going to use the line that we can accomplish much as individual contributors? While everyone can change habits to make very minor differences, the real issues like with governments and large corporations.
No. I have an issue with people feeling victimized and placing blame on others as if the shit sandwich we’re all going to eat can be reasonably blamed on an entity as if a moment existed in the history of human behavior and politics where we weren’t already screwed long ago.
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
it’s kinda hard to make good on any other constitutional right if populations being culled by extreme heat
That also does not exist in the US (yet), nor will it even when we pass the 1.5°C target, nor when we keep going beyond it and pass major climate tipping points causing irreversible changes. This kind of hyperbole doesn’t help, when we have a real, serious issue
Did they even track and measure weather anywhere close to what we have now?
Following centuries old doctorines is still weird to me
It’s the basis of law and order. You can’t just do whatever you want, that’s a dictatorship.
I’m not arguing for anarchy haha
I’m just saying that it’s not modified more/restructured/etc
Seems like governmental philosophizing (surely there’s a term for this) has gone stale these days.
Time for a new amendment then, bitches. Let’s fucking do this.
Removed by mod
Maybe pick your fights elsewhere? What, do you like the idea of you and everyone you know boiling alive? Gettin’ paid by Joe Biden to go to bat with the stupidest sentence ever?This is such a needlessly jaded and edgy comment, why did you even bother posting that? This isn’t 4chan lol
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.
Pack it in folks, we don’t have the right to live. Constitution doesn’t mean shit if there is no one around to read it.
What does the constitution day about computers and cars and genetic engineering?
AI robots, assault rifles.
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.
Well, technically the Justice Department is correct. Which on the other hand should not imply that the government should just keep out of it.
But the climate change was mainly caused by people and corporations, so they are the ones to blame.
Which people? All people? Like yourself?
The Jacobin is such a rag lol.
Biden’s done more for climate policy than every President before him combined, and the DOJ is no more “his” here than it is when it prosecutes Donald Trump.
Americans, legally, do not have a constitutional right to anything regarding the climate. This makes standing on climate policy difficult (but clearly not impossible, as the article itself notes) to prove.
This isn’t some “gotcha”
I feel like this is worded to be a jab at JB when it really shouldn’t be. Unfortunately it is true. At best they can say people have a right to not have the government subsidise the oil industry, mining operations and other things that are directly damaging, but they can’t guarantee clean air.
deleted by creator
