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.

  • catreadingabook@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    9
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    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.

    • AA5B@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      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