Skip to comments.
The constitutional right to a healthier climate
Boston Globe ^
| March 9, 2016
| James E. Hansen
Posted on 03/09/2016 8:30:31 AM PST by C19fan
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-32 next last
Money quote:
We argue that such federal actions infringe upon the fundamental guarantees of the Fifth Amendment, including the rights to life, liberty, property, and equal protection of the law.
Hansen has no clue between the difference between Negative and Positive. Hansen's argument would convert the Fifth Amendment into a Enabling Act giving the POTUS and/or the court dictatorial powers.
1
posted on
03/09/2016 8:30:31 AM PST
by
C19fan
To: C19fan
To: C19fan
3
posted on
03/09/2016 8:32:08 AM PST
by
Eric in the Ozarks
(Baseball players, gangsters and musicians are remembered. But journalists are forgotten.)
To: C19fan
4
posted on
03/09/2016 8:32:15 AM PST
by
subterfuge
(TED CRUZ FOR POTUS!)
To: C19fan
Meant Negative and Positive Rights...
5
posted on
03/09/2016 8:32:25 AM PST
by
C19fan
To: C19fan
I believe in freedom of the press. I also believe that dangerous psychotics should be institutionalized for the safety of themselves and others.
6
posted on
03/09/2016 8:32:45 AM PST
by
Pecos
(What we obtain too cheap, we esteem too lightly.)
To: ModelBreaker
Such arguments make as much sense as legislating gravity.
7
posted on
03/09/2016 8:32:59 AM PST
by
blackdog
(There is no such thing as healing, only a balance between destructive and constructive forces.)
To: C19fan
There ain’t no “negative” or “positive” in God-given rights.
8
posted on
03/09/2016 8:35:03 AM PST
by
Cletus.D.Yokel
(Catastrophic Anthropogenic Climate Alterations: The acronym defines the science.)
To: C19fan
Why is this huckster, who is wasting atmospheric oxygen, being listened to? He’s no more credible than algore.
9
posted on
03/09/2016 8:35:11 AM PST
by
sauropod
(I am His and He is mine.)
To: C19fan
The left has long wanted to convert the Constitution from something that limited the power of government for the benefit of individual liberties (negative) to enhancing the power of government, "responsibilities" government has, at the expense of individual liberties (positive).
They have just about accomplished that goal. Which candidates are talking about reducing the size of and getting government out of the way vs. candidates who are promising to "fix" our problems?
10
posted on
03/09/2016 8:35:31 AM PST
by
skeeter
To: C19fan
As if these Boston Globe people gave a rats about the Constitution. Where was their outrage of the mass invasion of homes in Boston without a warrant—a clear violation of the Constitution.
11
posted on
03/09/2016 8:37:36 AM PST
by
WKUHilltopper
(And yet...we continue to tolerate this crap...)
To: C19fan
To: C19fan
James E. Hansen My head starts hurting everytime I see that name...
Not going to read his idiotic pablum...
13
posted on
03/09/2016 8:41:20 AM PST
by
Popman
To: C19fan
If future generations mattered would we be dumping trillions of dollars in debt on them?
I don’t think so. :)
14
posted on
03/09/2016 8:43:24 AM PST
by
Tzimisce
To: Eric in the Ozarks
“A deeply confused man...”
that 4 members of SCOTUS likely agree with, to our peril.
15
posted on
03/09/2016 8:44:04 AM PST
by
lacrew
To: C19fan
Continued failure to phase out fossil fuel emissions will consign our children to a diminishing existence. Maybe a different existence but not necessarily diminished. There is no divine right to stagnation.
16
posted on
03/09/2016 8:44:04 AM PST
by
mjp
((pro-{God, reality, reason, egoism, individualism, natural rights, limited government, capitalism}))
To: C19fan
If the consumer products you crave, are destroying the environment it be comes a little hypocritical to act all high and mighty.
To: C19fan
Does he also believe in the Tooth Fairy? Santa? Easter Bunny?
18
posted on
03/09/2016 8:47:39 AM PST
by
Made In The USA
(Rap music: Soundtrack of the retarded.)
To: C19fan
It is beyond discouraging to realize that not only does stupid run this deep, but that that the population has been so “Idiocracy-fied” that fools that this actually write things that are read and believed by others.
To: C19fan
The Constitution in no way provides a right for Men to rule over God. Climate is so far beyond man's ability to manage it that to attempt it approaches Luciferian hubris.
But you have to give the Globe credit for trying a new -- albeit absurd -- approach.
20
posted on
03/09/2016 8:55:25 AM PST
by
IronJack
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-32 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson