Not only is there nothing in the constitution to prevent them from adding to it, the forefathers urged us to do so, and created systems for exactly that reason. The forefathers weren't dummies, they were smart guys. That's why they created something that is supposed to be a living document.

the US would have to invade any country that endangers the climate for is citizens to ensure that right.

The US has invaded several countries to ensure their citizens have the right to cheap oil, which is also not covered in the constitution.

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.

That's true I always forget about that.

I find penumbral reasoning compelling in its own right.

But the Ninth Amendment is express:

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Americans are utterly obsessed with their constitution. They treat it like a holy book, despite (and perhaps sometimes because of) the fact that it's pretty much impossible to convince enough people to change these days, despite it also needing changes.

Thanks.

I was going to say, that it's not an environmental document and climate science was barely a thing when it was written. (meteorology was but not climate science as we know it).

Can you, for one moment, stop thinking about the earth and instead focus on the profits and shareholder interests? Dont be selfish

Correct, the constitution does not literally call out the right to a stable climate, however it's kinda hard to make good on any other constitutional right if populations being culled by extreme heat becomes the new worldwide norm.

How can one live without a stable environment?

To be fair, it's the other side that has all that "right to life" hypocrisy.

AI robots, assault rifles.

If someone’s invading your guns have already failed.