A federal appeals court ruled recently in favor of 21 children and
young adults who are suing the U.S. government for not doing enough to protect
their “constitutional right to a stable climate.” Judges on the Ninth Circuit
Court of Appeals refused to block the U.S. District Court in Oregon from
hearing the suit, which was originally filed by the environmental group Our
Children’s Trust in 2015.
Say again? The “constitutional right to a stable climate?” If the Ninth Circuit Court of Schlemiels and Our
Children’s Trust had been around in the three-and-a-half-billion-year period
between “primordial soup” and the onset of the Industrial Age, they would’ve
been suing the crap out of planet earth and mother nature.
In 2016, a federal judge somehow ruled that the 21 youths had
legal standing to sue. The Trump administration appealed the decision in June
of 2017, asking judges to “end this clearly improper attempt to have the
judiciary decide important questions of energy and environmental policy” (thereby
upsetting the balance of powers). The Ninth Circuit refused to do so. The
ruling is a victory for environmental activists seeking to use the courts to
force the Trump administration to issue regulations to phase out fossil fuels…and
paves the way for the case to be tried.
Julia Olson, Our Children’s Trust chief counsel, says the case
argues that constitutional rights to life, liberty and property are being
violated by the federal government’s failure to enact policies to stop
catastrophic global warming. But the reality is that our constitutional rights
to life, liberty, and property would be immeasurably more “violated” if we did
not utilize existing fossil fuels to provide affordable energy to heat our
homes in the winter and cool them in the summer, allow us to get from one place
to another, properly package our consumables, and to provide the jobs and
incomes we all need to survive.
According to the Daily
Caller, “plaintiffs say the right to a stable climate comes from the public
trust doctrine — the idea certain natural resources should be protected for
enjoyment of future generations.” There wouldn’t have been any future generations if earlier ones hadn’t made good use of natural resources such as plants
and animals-- otherwise known as food, clothing and shelter. And, as for energy
sources, you know organizations like Our Children’s Trust don’t want our children
extracting and burning fossil fuels in the future, either. They want to see
legislation enacted banning the use of all energy sources save solar and wind.
So, what “enjoyment” would future generations derive from oil and gas? “Well,
Bob, I don’t know about you, but-- even though we can’t see them or use them—it
sure makes me feel good knowing there’s oil and natural gas under our feet! Bet
they’re purty, too!”
The progressive’s staggering ignorance about-- or willful
misrepresentation of-- the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, especially as
they relate to Natural Law, is tragic. It’s also literally an existential
threat to the existence of the nation the Framers ever-so-carefully crafted.
The concept of negative rights essentially means that no one,
government included, has the right to arbitrarily steal from you, imprison you
or kill you. The idea behind “positive rights” is that someone, or everyone—but
government in particular—is obligated
to provide you with a good or service. There
can be no such thing as a positive “right,” at least as granted by man.
The Creator grants us all equal and inalienable rights to life,
liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. These can only be effectively protected
through negative rights-- limits on what our fellow human beings and the
governments comprised of them—can do to us.
We are not granted the
“right to a stable climate,” just as
we are not granted the “right” to own a mansion, or be free of want, acne or
Irritable Bowel Syndrome. Yet, progressives would contest that remark.
Ironically, the idea that we are
not granted a positive “right” to everlasting life is one with which the vast majority
of progressives would agree. But only because most don’t believe in God, Heaven or an afterlife.
Natural Law informs us that the
government can’t logically deny our right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
Nor can it deny us the chance at eternal life.
Only we ourselves can do that.
No comments:
Post a Comment