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.
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 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…
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.
the point of those courts is to decide what is or is not free speech.
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.
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.