The Department of Justice said this, not Joe Biden. Fuck this headline.
NO!!! it was the Bastard Biden all along! He also single-handedly made the gas prices go UP!!! It had NOTHING to do with OPEC, petroleum companies, and an unstable economy! I SAW THE EXECUTIVE ORDER IN MY DREAMS! (/¯ ಠ_ಠ)/¯
I’m sorry, I’m neurodivergent. Is this sarcasm?
It is absolutely sarcasm!
And this?
The aforementioned comment was not sarcasm!
This is just a recipe for a 3-tier cake.
We should be mad at whoever picked out the garbage attorney general running DOJ
deleted by creator
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.
There was due process, didn’t you see the profits of big oil?
They’re right though. BUT, your Constitution is supposed to be a living document, not the Bible (ironically the Bible has been…edited many times), so you should amend it.
Sure and we can edit it we just haven’t in a good long time. That’s the problem
Really need to get with the times and make this document live service with DLC.
Technically true, but supremely unhelpful.
Quite helpful if website clicks pay your mortgage, quit being so selfish.
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.
what has him and his administration done?
Huge investments in renewable energy and the electrification of transportation.
That’s because the Constitution was made way before this was a problem lmao
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
The right to manipulate the environment was not specifically conveyed to Congress, so it is retained by the states or the people. Congress is therefore infringing on our 10th amendment right to a stable environment when it acts outside of its mandate.
Handing out subsidies to petroleum companies counts as “manipulat[ing] the environment,” right?
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.
There is no constitutional right for lots of stuff
Constitution doesn’t grant rights, it just defines the ones that have been made relevant. Climate change has now made the right to a stable climate relevant, and thus the proper course of action is an amendment.
I’m not dumb though, I know that shit won’t budge in our current government. So what is to be done when a fucked up government and it’s people disagree about what rights the people have? Something necessary but unpleasant…
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!
This isn’t surprising. Thw US Constitution doesn’t encompass all legislation or possibilities. That’s the purpose of legislation from congress.
That so many keep turning tonl the constitution all the time for answers speaks volumes about how broken the US Congress and state level political systems are.
Basically if we want legislation to enforce climate stabilisation and prioritisation then the US needs to do something about it’s polarised and clogged up political system.
Personally I think proportional representation to break the power of the duopoly of dems and repubs is the way to go. Citizens in individual states and communities may even have potential routes to do that at local levels through their plebiscite systems. They could break the system from the bottom but for whatever reason aren’t.
They could break the system from the bottom but for whatever reason aren’t.
Comfort. The system as it is, is predictable. Not just the voting public but members of Congress too. Good example the FED rate. At any point Congress could have put forth fiscal policy to address the looming monetary situation that quantitative easing was very clearly bringing. But they didn’t because no one wanted to be the group that ended the party. Because what would happen if they implemented policy and then poof, slow down of the economy or inflation?
But of course we know what happened. No fiscal policy got implemented and basically we kept riding that gravy train till it was completely untenable. Then monetary policy had to be implemented. Then came a massive spike in inflation. Congress was so scared to implement any kind of policy that they basically ensured the thing they didn’t want happening.
Then you’ve got folks like Senator Elizabeth Warren trying to blame the FED chairman and it is like, “No, you’re inaction Senator is why the FED chairman must do the things he must do. All 100 of you are culpable in this, you all sat there and did nothing.”
But of course one brings this up and some folks want to try and hijack it like “See both sides!” Or you get “No the other team is much worse!” And the reality is, most members of Congress are just too sheepish to implement any kind of bold policy. Because what if it doesn’t work? There’s the obvious bunch that are seen most often in the news, but there’s way more members than the ones that seek out face time on the TV. And those are the majority.
The majority of Congress just wants to push the button they’re told to push, collect their paycheck, and move on. And that is why we see no motion. The polarization is the visible figureheads battling it out, but the real culprit is indifference and a desire to maintain the comfortable world that has known qualities. Very rarely is actual original thought obtained in the US Congress.
My shoe provider, TJ Maxx, is claiming you’re daf.
I mean, yeah. It’d be more of a human right, wouldn’t it?
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.
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
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
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
