• AnonTwo@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    16
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 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@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 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.

        • datszechuansauce@infosec.pub
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          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.

      • sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        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.