329

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.

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] andysteakfries@lemmy.world 117 points 1 year ago

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.

[-] Anticorp@lemmy.ml 22 points 1 year ago

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.

[-] andysteakfries@lemmy.world 7 points 1 year ago

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.

[-] Franzia@lemmy.blahaj.zone 4 points 1 year ago

I think the compromises they struck have put a lot of that wishful thinking out of reach.

[-] Slotos@feddit.nl 3 points 1 year ago

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.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
[-] dmmeyournudes@lemmy.world 60 points 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 23 points 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.

[-] dmmeyournudes@lemmy.world 10 points 1 year ago

And you've proven my point.

load more comments (22 replies)
load more comments (5 replies)
[-] justastranger@sh.itjust.works 41 points 1 year ago

The Constitution also explicitly states that we have rights not enumerated in the Constitution.

[-] JustZ@lemmy.world 15 points 1 year ago

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.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] Syringe@lemmy.world 39 points 1 year ago

Good to know that nobody will be held accountable for the end of the world.

[-] Driftking@lemmy.ml 11 points 1 year ago

Can you, for one moment, stop thinking about the earth and instead focus on the profits and shareholder interests? Dont be selfish

load more comments (6 replies)
[-] soviettaters@lemm.ee 38 points 1 year ago

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.

[-] CoderKat@lemm.ee 9 points 1 year ago

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.

load more comments (3 replies)
[-] JingJang@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago

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).

[-] Aesthesiaphilia@kbin.social 35 points 1 year ago

I mean...it doesn't

Who thinks it does? What a silly idea

[-] zib@kbin.social 17 points 1 year ago

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.

[-] andysteakfries@lemmy.world 12 points 1 year ago

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.

[-] Aesthesiaphilia@kbin.social 2 points 1 year ago

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.

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
[-] CeruleanRuin@lemmings.world 32 points 1 year ago

Time for a new amendment then, bitches. Let's fucking do this.

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] Pons_Aelius@kbin.social 25 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

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)

[-] pinkdrunkenelephants@sopuli.xyz 8 points 1 year ago

How can one live without a stable environment?

[-] Pons_Aelius@kbin.social 9 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

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.

[-] curiousaur@reddthat.com 3 points 1 year ago

Uncomfortably.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] JusticeForPorygon@lemmy.sdf.org 20 points 1 year ago

Apparently right to life is not right to live

[-] elbarto777@lemmy.world 14 points 1 year ago

To be fair, it's the other side that has all that "right to life" hypocrisy.

[-] JusticeForPorygon@lemmy.sdf.org 4 points 1 year ago

Yeah, that's true. Man, our options kinda suck.

[-] kaffiene@lemmy.world 15 points 1 year ago

What does the constitution day about computers and cars and genetic engineering?

[-] Stinkywinks@lemmy.world 15 points 1 year ago

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.

[-] Treczoks@lemmy.world 8 points 1 year ago

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.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] FunderPants@lemmy.ca 8 points 1 year ago

The constitution gotta protect guns in case the king of England invades your F250 but heaven forbid you protect the environment.

[-] intensely_human@lemm.ee 3 points 1 year ago

If someone’s invading your guns have already failed.

[-] SCB@lemmy.world 8 points 1 year ago

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"

[-] TheDoctorDonna@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago

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.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 18 Aug 2023
329 points (88.9% liked)

Not The Onion

12390 readers
540 users here now

Welcome

We're not The Onion! Not affiliated with them in any way! Not operated by them in any way! All the news here is real!

The Rules

Posts must be:

  1. Links to news stories from...
  2. ...credible sources, with...
  3. ...their original headlines, that...
  4. ...would make people who see the headline think, “That has got to be a story from The Onion, America’s Finest News Source.”

Comments must abide by the server rules for Lemmy.world and generally abstain from trollish, bigoted, or otherwise disruptive behavior that makes this community less fun for everyone.

And that’s basically it!

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS