• AnonTwo
    link
    fedilink
    271 year ago

    It’s a nothing article. There’s no reason to have ever assumed it was a constitutional right

    There’s plenty of other, much better reasons to justify the need for stable climate.

      • AnonTwo
        link
        fedilink
        141 year ago

        The constitution also doesn’t deny the right to a stable climate, if that is what you mean.

        It just has nothing to do with it.

          • AnonTwo
            link
            fedilink
            11 year ago

            Not sure why you’re here 4 days later…but nothing in the constitution says they can’t have national parks.

            Again, the issue is just it has nothing to do with it. There’s easily other avenues to go about than the constitution.

            • Why are you here? And if nothing in the constitution says we can’t have national parks, nothing in it says we can’t regulate a stable climate.

              I don’t even really disagree with you that there are better ways to go about it. It’s just stupid to agree with their claim.

          • Probably, but it doesn’t need to be enshrined in the Constitution. The federal government already has the power to regulate emissions, it doesn’t need the Constitution to reiterate that.

      • Sentrovasi
        link
        fedilink
        21 year ago

        Then possibly something needs to change - add a new Amendment or something. But to claim that old laws written with an old understanding of how the world works needs to somehow carry the semantic weight of something it was never written to do seems a bit much.

        • Why does the Constitution need to be involved? The federal government already has power to regulate emissions, so there’s nothing stopping Congress (from a constitutional perspective) from passing laws to do so.