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.

  • DMmeYourNudes@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    65
    ·
    1 year ago

    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.

    • Pons_Aelius@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      32
      ·
      1 year ago

      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.

        • Pons_Aelius@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          13
          ·
          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@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            26
            ·
            1 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@kbin.social
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              9
              ·
              1 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@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                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@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              1 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@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                5
                ·
                1 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.

      • DMmeYourNudes@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        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.

          • DMmeYourNudes@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            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.

    • dimath@ttrpg.network
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      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.

    • Franzia
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      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.