Not The Onion

11846 readers

421 users here now

Welcome

We're not The Onion! Not affiliated with them in any way! Not operated by them in any way! All the news here is real!

The Rules

Posts must be:

Links to news stories from...
...credible sources, with...
...their original headlines, that...
...would make people who see the headline think, “That has got to be a story from The Onion, America’s Finest News Source.”

Comments must abide by the server rules for Lemmy.world and generally abstain from trollish, bigoted, or otherwise disruptive behavior that makes this community less fun for everyone.

And that’s basically it!

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

kescusay@lemmy.world

318

Joe Biden’s DOJ Is Claiming “There Is No Constitutional Right to a Stable Climate” (jacobin.com)

submitted 1 year ago by JoeCoT@kbin.social to c/nottheonion@lemmy.world

92 comments fedilink hide all child comments

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.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] dmmeyournudes@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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.

[–] Melpomene@kbin.social 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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.

[–] dmmeyournudes@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

No one said the US can take actions on foreign soil. That is the opposite of what was said.