93
submitted 2 years ago by shreddy_scientist@lemmy.ml to c/usa@lemmy.ml
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] AnonTwo@kbin.social 14 points 2 years ago

The constitution also doesn't deny the right to a stable climate, if that is what you mean.

It just has nothing to do with it.

[-] datszechuansauce@infosec.pub 1 points 2 years ago

Justify the existence of national parks then

[-] AnonTwo@kbin.social 1 points 2 years ago

Not sure why you're here 4 days later...but nothing in the constitution says they can't have national parks.

Again, the issue is just it has nothing to do with it. There's easily other avenues to go about than the constitution.

[-] datszechuansauce@infosec.pub 1 points 2 years ago

Why are you here? And if nothing in the constitution says we can't have national parks, nothing in it says we can't regulate a stable climate.

I don't even really disagree with you that there are better ways to go about it. It's just stupid to agree with their claim.

[-] shreddy_scientist@lemmy.ml 0 points 2 years ago

Your right, but this needs to change. In order to stop Billionaires from ensuring there isn't a single functional ecosystem, legal actions will be necessary.

[-] sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works 2 points 2 years ago

Probably, but it doesn't need to be enshrined in the Constitution. The federal government already has the power to regulate emissions, it doesn't need the Constitution to reiterate that.

this post was submitted on 23 Aug 2023
93 points (85.5% liked)

United States | News & Politics

8303 readers
402 users here now

founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS