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 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.