The United States argues there is no constitutional right to a stable climate - Polidicks

https://www.washingtonpost.com/climate-environment/2019/06/04/government-argues-halt-youth-climate-lawsuit-saying-there-is-no-constitutional-right-stable-climate/ A group of young Americans who have spent nearly four years trying to compel the federal government to take action on climate change found themselves back in court Tuesday, arguing that their unprecedented lawsuit should move forward. And the Trump administration, like the Obama administration before it, was there to argue once again that the lawsuit should be tossed out before it ever goes to trial, both because the plaintiffs do not meet the legal requirements to bring such a suit and because “there is no fundamental constitutional right to a ‘stable climate system.’” The lawsuit, filed in 2015 by 21 young people who argue that the failure of government leaders to combat climate change violates their constitutional right to a clean environment, had been scheduled to go to trial last fall before a district judge in Oregon. But it was delayed at the last minute while the Supreme Court considered an emergency request from the government. In early November, the court refused to grant the Trump administration’s plea to stop the case before trial, instead sending it back to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit. “It is a case that is a dagger at the separation of powers,” Jeffrey Bossert Clark, an assistant attorney general for the Justice Department, argued before a panel of three appeals court judges. He added, “This is a suit that is designed to circumvent a whole bunch of statutes.” In briefs to the Supreme Court, Solicitor General Noel J. Francisco wrote that "the assertion of sweeping new fundamental rights to certain climate conditions has no basis in the nation’s history and tradition — and no place in federal court.”

What a pants on head fucktarded thought lmao

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. - literally the fucking Declaration of Independence Fuck that "life" part lol not our fault you die because of extreme shifts in climate.

are you fucking shitting me? What idiot said this? Do they have any sense of the fucking planet?

Yeah, you don't have any right to liveable conditions either I guess, because they'll become precisely the opposite should climate change become worse than what it already is, which it will.

nope

The problem is they're right, because the founding fathers didn't expect us to be this retarded in dealing with our enviornment and figured this kind of thing could be solved by amendments and such.

They probably didn't expect future governments to throw the intent behind constitutional laws out of the window whenever it suits them personally.

I hope that extreme wealth treats you well in the afterlife when we all fucking die in 50 years.

This news combined with Trump's recent interest in the space program gives the impression that they are seriously trying for a "rich, powerful and well off live on a pristine space station/another planet, everyone else is stuck foraging for scraps on whats left of Earth" scenario.

tbh I don't think they have the foresight to plan this. They already live off of damning the future for short term gains.

I think people are over-reacting when they look in to this. Not every issues is, or should be, a constitutional one. The constitution as it is currently written does not support all of the things people want it to. The solution should be to improve the constitution by amending it, and making healthy additions. Even the stodgiest founding fathers thought the constitution was meant to at least be altered once every 100 years or so. I by no means would be opposed to a Women's/Bodily rights bill, and a Green Bill. However, stretching the already over-stretched Constitution to these absurd lengths only makes matters worse - more partisanal, more abstract - not better. For instance, while I do think there is an implied right to privacy in the Constitution, I think it's ridiculous that my rights as a bisexual man married to another man are protected by something that exists solely in imagination. Likewise the same for a hundred-dozen issues that the Constitution has been expanded to cover as our failure of a Congress continually punts questions and problems to the supreme court. Even now the same parts of the constitution used to guarantee access to abortions and sexual minorities are used to oppress and criminalize the same things. Something has gone wrong. Let me put it like this: If the Constitution as written plausibly guarantees a "green" policy, then that means it is Constitutionally illegal for the government to take any action that could conceptually or percievably damage, harm or imperil the environment. Full stop, no breaks. Likewise it means any actions that do the same are functionally constitutionally illegal. So all mining, fishing, industrial farming, meat raising, hardware production, heavy metals industries, pharmaceutical use and more would therefor be illegal, as well as international shipping. America would in a single move, be tying it's hands behind it's back and saying "we are now Mennonites." Because all of the things I've enumerated have sincerely massive, detrimental environmental footprints according to known science. Even large scale energy production outside of windfarming and solar would be, functionally, unconstitutional. Unlesssss you just say "okay lol Constitution says global warming is real idk" and proceed to have zero salient impact because of it. Even a "generous" roadmap to Constitutional compliance would, like China's "green target" just be an excuse in and of itself.

I see now that we're finally at the stage where they're just throwing in the towel and openly admitting that "Yep, we're pure evil, and we don't care, because our dumbfuck base is still going to vote for us anyway."

Fuck the Constitution. Stop guiding yourselves by what a piece of paper and an imaginary being "tell" you to do. Who are we kidding... The only thing you give a fuck about is money lol

they're arguing the government has an obligation to protect the environment under the blanket of protecting the country. Right now the republican administrations and republican congresses have just outright ignored any and all environmental concerns even as there's massive evidence of massive costs to this inaction ya you're right we need to deal with this legislatively but getting a ruling saying environment cannot be ignored would be progress

Is it me are the United States really fucking up massively just recently. It's unbearable to read these news.

It'd be a fucking shame if eco-terrorists managed to nuke it

I'm fairly certain that the Constitution specifically includes the right to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness. A stable climate would kinda very obviously fall under the first and third. You'd have to be a total brainless fool to try to claim otherwise.

Life, Liberty, and Pursuit of Happiness is in the Declaration of Independence, not the Constitution. The Constitution DOES say We the people of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America. Of course that's the opening and not any Article or Section so that asshole probably thinks neener neener it doesn't count

You are not a true European if you haven´t xaxaxa'd, hæhæhæ'd, jajaja'd, híhíhí'd, honhonhon'd, ahahah'd, høhøhø'd, ghahagha'd and hähähä'd at USA since at least Bush.

Whoops, I mixed up which document it came from. I'd still argue that the Declaration has just as much bearing on US government policy as the Constitution though, even if it's not "technically" the law.

Remember guys, civil disobedience stunts like shutting down airports with drones(inconvenience must be done in order for protesting to be effective) is not only a good idea with dealing with these people by the only way. They have long since sold the world out for their short life time of wealth. It's best we go all out before riots break out not for our right to live but for water and food and even clean air itself.

Not sure on the voting part, but no power? Sure. You're 65, retire and go play canasta you geriatric goober.

And no politician has a constitutional right to be exempt from the guillotine

We shouldn't need a Constitutional amendment that says the government has a duty to try to make its nation fucking compatible with human life.

Apparently with the Republican party discarding any and all unwritten rules though we now have to put even things as obvious as this into writing unfortunately.

Oh my god we finally hit levels of retardation I'd never though we'd see in out life times, god help us all. Also last time I checked the constitution does not grant me the right to take a massive shit; and wasn't there an amendment/clause that said just because its not in the constitution does not mean its not a right so long as it does not conflict with the right given or cause direct harm to a person(s)? And its not like I and several very angry people with say enough rifles to arm a battalion can show up to D.C and say reboot the government. also to the FBI/NSA/CIA person assigned to me, I'd like to say that was a hypothetical situation and does not mean in any way that I am planing such a thing cause that conspiracy/treason and that's illegal.

Except if you're in a womb.

And the Trump administration, like the Obama administration before it, was there to argue once again that the lawsuit should be tossed out before it ever goes to trial, both because the plaintiffs do not meet the legal requirements to bring such a suit and because “there is no fundamental constitutional right to a ‘stable climate system.’” Yo what? I don’t think this would be any different unless we had Bernie or someone very similar in office.

This is why we cannot afford to end up with Biden as a candidate. Doing another election round of “the lesser of two evulz” as an excuse not to pick Bernie or Warren (never in my life thought I’d be advocating for her) in favor of advocating for another pro establishment democrat is going screw us all over regardless. The writing is on the wall and there really is no other choice at this point. It’s all or nothing.