• M68040 [they/them]
    ·
    edit-2
    11 months ago

    I feel like this falls under the “life” part of “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness”

    Also, in a broader sense, “we can shit everywhere all we want and never clean up” is a criminally idiotic way to govern

    • Melonius [he/him]
      ·
      11 months ago

      maybe-later-honey founding fathers didn't explicitly say where to shit so our hands are tied

    • AbbysMuscles [she/her]
      ·
      11 months ago

      But there is a line in the constitution mentioning the government's duty to provide for the general welfare.

      Not that any of this shit matters but still

    • joseph [he/him, they/them]
      ·
      11 months ago

      That phrase is not in the constitution tho. It was a line from the DOI at the start of the revolution and isn’t actually binding to the current American federal government.

      • Optimus_Subprime [he/him, they/them]
        ·
        edit-2
        11 months ago

        "Akshualy" that is somewhat incorrect. Yes, the DOI has that line stating the "right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness", but the 5th and 14th amendments of the US Constitution explicitly protect the right to life and liberty. Not that the Biden DOJ gives a shit anyway.

        https://blogs.cuit.columbia.edu/culr/2016/02/16/constitutional-considerations-of-happiness/

        While the Declaration of Independence recognizes the unalienable rights of “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” and the Constitution explicitly protects life and liberty, happiness goes unmentioned in the highest law of the land.[1]

        [1] The Declaration of Independence.

        U.S. Constitution. Amend. V, Amend. XIV.

        EDIT: For those who don't want to look it up...

        5th Amendment:

        The guarantee of due process for all persons requires the government to respect all rights, guarantees, and protections afforded by the U.S. Constitution and all applicable statutes before the government can deprive any person of life, liberty, or property.

        14th Amendment:

        No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

        • silent_water [she/her]
          ·
          11 months ago

          it's worth about as much as toilet paper since this has never meant anything during any part of US history.

        • GarbageShoot [he/him]
          ·
          11 months ago

          This is regarding the State itself not depriving people of life (e.g. by execution) except by due process, not a guarantee that life will be protected in any other sense for any other reason.

          Obviously also bullshit given cops summarily executing people and having qualified immunity, etc., but if we're being pedantic, we should go all the way.

    • Egon [they/them]
      ·
      11 months ago

      The US is the only country I know of that fetishises it's constitution to this extent. Most everywhere else it's just an old document, but it seems like us lawmakers treat it like some demonic pact that has to be inscrutably followed

      • mar_k [he/him]
        ·
        edit-2
        11 months ago

        It's also really weird how the highest court in the land is supposed to be dedicated to interpreting the constitution and extrapolating whether the founding fathers would have supported or opposed something fucking 250 years ago. Other countries rewrite parts of their constitutions all the time, but in burgerland George Washington is a deity that supposedly knew it all.

        Also, America has the second oldest working constitution in the world which (only beaten by a microstate), which is kinda crazy for how young the country is

        • GrouchyGrouse [he/him]
          ·
          11 months ago

          It's very Warhammer 40k by worshipping the document equivalent of a headstone for centuries.

        • gonk [he/him]
          ·
          11 months ago

          What's even weirder is that the US Supreme Court was not even given that power by the constitution and just kinda gave it to itself in Marbury v Madison

      • pythonoob@programming.dev
        ·
        11 months ago

        What's the difference between a lawyer and a demon? Idk

        Both make pacts and contracts. Both honor the verbiage of the contract to the letter over the intent. Both will cost you dearly. Both generally only show up uninvited or when something bad happens. Both take benefit from others' misfortune.

        I can't tell the difference.

        • Egon [they/them]
          ·
          edit-2
          11 months ago

          A demon fucks you, a lawyer fucks you. That's the real difference I think

      • krolden@lemmy.ml
        ·
        10 months ago

        And they love to cling to single amendments instead of the entire document, as it should be interpreted.

  • duderium [he/him]
    ·
    11 months ago

    Biden is the more competent fascist we were warned about. Capital will get its way regardless of which major political party is running the country.

    • SeventyTwoTrillion [he/him]M
      ·
      11 months ago

      there's only been competent fascists and incompetent fascists for the last few decades at least, Trump was merely so incompetent that it temporarily broke the grand spell before the government used the Men in Black memory deletion thingy and everybody went "Awesome, back to brunch!" on January 20th, 2021

  • FnordPrefect [comrade/them, he/him]
    ·
    11 months ago

    In the Biden administration’s June 22 court filing, Justice Department lawyers argued that because the child plaintiffs are not the only people who will be harmed by ecological breakdown, the suit should be thrown out.

    “The state of the climate is a public and generalized issue, and so interests in the climate are unlike the particularized personal liberty or personal privacy interests of individuals the Supreme Court has previously recognized as being protected by fundamental rights,” the Justice Department wrote.

    biden You see, this is going to kill everyone so your individual concerns about being killed are invalid

    joker-amerikkklap

    • ped_xing [he/him]
      ·
      11 months ago

      “They're trying to kill me," Yossarian told him calmly.

      "No one's trying to kill you," Clevinger cried.

      "Then why are they shooting at me?" Yossarian asked.

      "They're shooting at everyone," Clevinger answered. "They're trying to kill everyone."

      "And what difference does that make?”

      ― Joseph Heller, Catch-22

    • thomcat@midwest.social
      ·
      11 months ago

      um, excuse me, i've been told it is the greatest document ever written and handed directly from god to george washington so get rekt leftists

    • SacredExcrement [any, comrade/them]
      ·
      11 months ago

      We only ever hear how "the sacred texts" prohibit things when they would be tangibly good.

      PATRIOT Act was ruled unconstitutional fucking forever ago, but you know.

  • Budwig_v_1337hoven [he/him]
    ·
    11 months ago

    so, they're arguing for a new amendment, right?

    they're arguing for a new amendment, right?

    • SacredExcrement [any, comrade/them]
      ·
      edit-2
      11 months ago

      r/politics is just saying "yeah, true", literally nobody going after Biden (some people actually saying "Jacobin just doing this because they're desperate for Trump back because Biden is so good"), and people arguing about how the 'sacred documents' say we can't do anything

      America is so fucked lmao

  • SootyChimney [any]
    ·
    11 months ago

    Ah, thank god the document was written to protect us from the transport of alcohol, but not to say, ensure we actually get to be alive.

    • WhatDoYouMeanPodcast [comrade/them]
      ·
      11 months ago

      The governance that had the hem and haw about whether black people are people should be the one to determine if we all choke on industrial refuse.

  • VILenin [he/him]
    ·
    11 months ago

    We can’t do anything the slavers from 250 years ago didn’t tell us to do

  • Erika3sis [she/her, xe/xem]
    ·
    11 months ago

    "There is no constitutional right to a stable climate" is giving me some real "There are things more important than peace" vibes

  • CyborgMarx [any, any]
    ·
    11 months ago

    Capitalists really out there trying to pick a fight with the climate, you can't drone strike a hurricane Brandon

    • usa_suxxx [they/them]
      ·
      11 months ago

      With our current tech, but with our future tech that doesn't exist not even in theory, it will be possible in 2030

    • Egon [they/them]
      ·
      11 months ago

      Looking forward to them shooting sulphur into the clouds to cool down the atmosphere

      • Frank [he/him, he/him]
        ·
        11 months ago

        I have the white paper for my "nuke the sahara until the temperature comes down" right here.