• @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    372 years ago

    There isn’t. It’s just that if you keep destabilizing the climate your practical right to keep your head and shoulders in the same place keeps deminishing

  • Brave Little Hitachi Wand
    link
    fedilink
    712 years ago

    The whole point of the constitution is “to ensure domestic tranquility”, and “no state shall deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process…” but I guess we get to handwave that if the means of deprivation being legislated is a second order effect.

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    62 years ago

    We need a sensible, omnipotent one world government under the care of a benevolent, charismatic potentate like Claus Schwab to reign in rogue emitters and punish carbon terrorists!

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      2
      edit-2
      2 years ago

      I’ll take AGI enslavement.

      Given humanity’s track record at self governance, rolling the dice is preferable. We’re too cruel, too stupid, too hateful, way too selfish, and basically a danger to ourselves and all other terran life.

      We need our keys taken away.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        22 years ago

        Most people aren’t that way I think, it’s just that the ones that are amass a ton of resources and get followers and become difficult to deal with by the time normal folks get pushed pass their timidity

        Like, Fortune 500 CEOs are 12 times as likely to be diagnosable psychopaths, but a world run by janitors with the right rules to vote by and a free press to keep them honest totally can work imo

      • tjhart85
        link
        fedilink
        4
        edit-2
        2 years ago

        If more coal could not be given to the people already polluting, that’d be great

  • El Chango Unchained
    link
    fedilink
    4
    edit-2
    2 years ago

    Montana courts: certifies state constitutional environmental guarantees.

    Federal government: LOL…no

  • FartsWithAnAccent
    link
    fedilink
    152 years ago

    I suppose you could argue they are technically sort of rightish but uh, hey, what the fuck? We all have to live here you fucking assholes!

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    172 years ago

    There’s also no constitutional right for the internal temperature of the White House not to exceed 950°F, but the fires are on their way anyway.

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    62 years ago

    Guess we just forget about the whole “promote the general welfare” part of the constitution when it gets in the way of profits?

    Color me shocked.

    • BraveSirZaphod
      link
      fedilink
      42 years ago

      That section of it had essentially no legal force, given that it can be construed to authorize literally anything.

      For instance, one might argue that a eugenics program to eliminate all “inferior” genes from the population “promotes the general welfare” of the people. You don’t actually want language that incredibly vague to have legal force

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        1
        edit-2
        2 years ago

        While it has no legal force, it does show what the laws that govern our society should reflect. The DOJ has no problem following a suggested notion that “no sitting president can be charged with a crime”, why can’t it follow a clearly stated purpose of:

        “establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity.”?

        i.e the DOJ shouldn’t be attempting this at all. It should just stay silent and let one of the gas companies attempt this insane notion instead

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        3
        edit-2
        2 years ago

        You don’t actually want language that incredibly vague to have legal force

        I don’t buy that, “The 8th amendment’s prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment has no legal force because it can be construed to mean anything, someone could argue having to pay their taxes was cruel and unusual” makes about as much sense to me. Words mean things, especially when they’re in the context of the rest of the Constitution’s clauses that suggest certain things are or aren’t allowed, so I just don’t see how throwing General Welfare on to the table instantly greenlights a reign of terror.

        Also, it’s not like the non-enforcement of General Welfare prevented eugenicist policies in the past

  • originalucifer
    link
    fedilink
    72 years ago

    i like it when the prove how conservative they really are.

    im convinced the current democrats are really the current conservatives. the current progressive left are the current democrats and the current conservatives are just unempathetic fascists.

    maybe updating everyones nomenclature might solve for some identity issues the right seems to have.

    if youre conservative, and dont think youre a fascist, guess what? youre still conservative. if youre a democratic whining that youd now be called conservative, own your shit. get over it. and the fascists? well they can fuck right off.

    something something somethin overton window

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      2
      edit-2
      2 years ago

      I mean… People from actually democratic countries have known that for a very long time… Even compared to Canada, which is USA light in many ways, the Democrats would be our Conservative Party (although their current leader/members is moving them closer and closer to the Republican party).

    • @[email protected]
      cake
      link
      fedilink
      62 years ago

      The US Democrats would count as very conservative on most issues in Germany. The Republicans would mostly be in jail for hate crimes or just plain old regular crimes. The failure of the US justice system to hold the political class accountable is staggering.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      22 years ago

      Conserving capital while liberally destroying life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Ironic.

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    12 years ago

    Gotta love it when politicians flop between literalist and pragmatic viewpoints depending on where the money’s coming from the needs of society.

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    372 years ago

    I mean, there isn’t one. The Biden administration has been the most active on climate change in American history, but the constitution is silent on the subject.