How climate change alarmism laws are unconstitutional

[anotherneil]

This is an extremely long-winded way of saying basically nothing.

Make concrete claims and show where the science is flawed, please.

You're attaking a straw man, since my point of contention is not about science being flawed, it's about people being flawed. Also, I placed this thread in a political section of the forum, not a science section.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

You're attaking a straw man, since my point of contention is not about science being flawed, it's about people being flawed.

Then please show how people being flawed has lead to flaws in the science. Because if what the science says is true, and conspiracy-laundering about political intentions or negative consequences is completely irrelevant.

"Hey, the science says the world will end in ten years unless we do X."
"Okay, but have you considered that you may only being saying that because it benefits you? Also, if we do X, it will result in Y negative outcome, so we need to be cautious when it comes to issues such as this, and furthermore -"
(ten years have passed, the world ends and everyone dies)

Also, I placed this thread in a political section of the forum, not a science section.

So? If the key point is "science says X" then the science matters. You cannot just vaguely allude to conspiracy as a way of ignoring science or dismissing it. You have to actually demonstrate that the science is flawed.

 

[anotherneil]

This thread is for debating the constitutionality of laws that place a ban on hydrocarbons or anything that burns hydrocarbons, not for debating science. I'm no longer going to entertain the science debate red herrings.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

This thread is for debating the constitutionality of laws that place a ban on hydrocarbons or anything that burns hydrocarbons, not for debating science. I'm no longer going to entertain the science debate red herrings.

Ah yes, the red herring of "well, doing this thing may save billions of lives, but the constitution says..."

That old red herring of basing political positions and decisions on actual material factors rather than pure idealism. Big old red herring, that one.

 

[anotherneil]

Then please show how people being flawed has lead to flaws in the science. Because if what the science says is true, and conspiracy-laundering about political intentions or negative consequences is completely irrelevant.

No, because my argument is that when it comes to constitutional rights, someone claiming that science says X is no reason to infringe them.

So? If the key point is "science says X" then the science matters. You cannot just vaguely allude to conspiracy as a way of ignoring science or dismissing it. You have to actually demonstrate that the science is flawed.

The key point is not "science says X" & that's for a science section debate; the key point is that someone is claiming that science says X & that neither this nor anything else is a valid or justifiable reason for infringing on constitutional rights.

I'm looking for rebuttals to the contention that constitutional rights are being infringed, something to the effect of "these laws do not infringe on the constitution because of [insert constitutional argument here]."

 

[anotherneil]

Ah yes, the red herring of "well, doing this thing may save billions of lives, but the constitution says..."

That old red herring of basing political positions and decisions on actual material factors rather than pure idealism. Big old red herring, that one.

No it isn't; I created this thread to discuss the constitutionality of such laws. Sticking to the topic is in no way a red herring; that's just absurd to say that it's a red herring. Be serious.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

No, because my argument is that when it comes to constitutional rights, someone claiming that science says X is no reason to infringe them.

Then that's phenomenally foolish, especially if the science is correct. Lives matter more than ideals.

The key point is not "science says X"

Yes, it is. That's the important part. Because if the science is right, the consequences for not listening to them are more materially harmful to people than doing what they advise. What you're engaging in is pure idealism, with no grasp or consideration for reality. It's like suggesting that because you have right of way you're not going to slow down your car when a pedestrian crosses your path, and you shouldn't be punished for running them over.

& that's for a science section debate; the key point is that someone is claiming that science says X & that neither this nor anything else is a valid or justifiable reason for infringing on constitutional rights.

That depends on the rights. You were around during covid, right? You understand how sensible and science-based restrictions on basic things like right to assemble and wearing masks in public resulted in millions of lives being saved, right?

I'm looking for rebuttals to the contention that constitutional rights are being infringed, something to the effect of "these laws do not infringe on the constitution because of [insert constitutional argument here]."

I don't care about constitutional arguments. I care about material reality, not idealism. My political positions are drawn by doing actual, material good. Not strictly adhering to a set of centuries-old ideals, even if doggedly adhering to them causes more harm.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

No it isn't; I created this thread to discuss the constitutionality of such laws. Sticking to the topic is in no way a red herring; that's just absurd to say that it's a red herring. Be serious.

It's not a red herring to take account of negative consequences of your "Constitution-centric" approach. If a temporary, partial or even permanent suspension of aspects of the constitution results in more material good than harm, then I believe that is the right thing to do. The key is to ensure the facts are taken into account so we make the best decision for the betterment of society.

Your argument is basically "ignore facts and material reality, because we should put the constitution ahead of everything - including all of human life".

Leaving aside the fact that even your constitutional argument is weak, and I don't even think you've made a sufficient argument to support the contention that policies designed to avert climate change are necessarily unconstitutional.

 

[anotherneil]

It's not a red herring to take account of negative consequences of your "Constitution-centric" approach. If a temporary, partial or even permanent suspension of aspects of the constitution results in more material good than harm, then I believe that is the right thing to do. The key is to ensure the facts are taken into account so we make the best decision for the betterment of society.

Your argument is basically "ignore facts and material reality, because we should put the constitution ahead of everything - including all of human life".

Leaving aside the fact that even your constitutional argument is weak, and I don't even think you've made a sufficient argument to support the contention that policies designed to avert climate change are necessarily unconstitutional.

You're free to start your own thread to discuss the science involved, and your scoffing at constitutional rights is duly noted.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

You're free to start your own thread to discuss the science involved,

The point I am making is that the science matters. Do you not think facts matter when forming policy and making decisions about the constitution?

and your scoffing at constitutional rights is duly noted.

If all you got out of my post was that I am "scoffing" at constitutional rights rather than "scoffing" at your suggestion that the constitution - as a document - is more important than the lives of people, and that science and material conditions should not play any part whatsoever in policy if those policies would conflict with the constitution, then I have to ask what you're doing on a political DEBATE forum.

 

[Revoltingest]

If a temporary, partial or even permanent suspension of aspects of the constitution results in more material good than harm, then I believe that is the right thing to do.

Trump embodies that philosophy,
ie, those in power shouldn't be so
constrained.
I see a downside to amendment
by fiat.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Trump embodies that philosophy,
ie, those in power shouldn't be so
constrained.
I see a downside to amendment
by fiat.

The key thing is whether or not the facts indicate that it's true. In the case of a massive outbreak or a looming environmental catastrophe, I would argue human life takes precedence over constitutional idealism. I mean, it's obviously an exaggeration, but I doubt anyone would argue that a law that brushes up against right to assembly can still be justified in the context of a global pandemic. The point is that the scientific facts matter; you can't just ignore material reality and the harm that will cause in order to uphold a specific set of ideals for no benefit whatsoever.

Trump just wants to upend the constitution to remain in power.

 

[Koldo]

This thread is for debating the constitutionality of laws that place a ban on hydrocarbons or anything that burns hydrocarbons, not for debating science. I'm no longer going to entertain the science debate red herrings.

But it is you who started this topic by saying the doom and gloom scenario is not a well-established fact. And proceeded to claim that any and every prediction is not scientific because it can not be falsified.

You used that to equate climate change alarmism to religion (since in this perspective both wouldn't be grounded on proper science). And then your conclusion is that the government can not impose laws that try to avert climate change because that would be equal to imposing a religion upon people and the constitution forbids that.

But what if climate change alarmism is indeed, at least majorly, grounded on well-established scientic facts? Then it isn't equal nor akin to religion and the government, therefore, does not have the same restriction to impose laws to avert climate change as it would if it were a religion.

So, the reason people started debating science with you is because of the argument you have made in the OP. Debunking your claim that climate change alarmism is akin to religion does make your argument fall apart.

In other words, discussing the science is NOT a red herring.

 

[Koldo]

The key point is not "science says X" & that's for science section debate; the key point is that someone is claiming that science says X & that neither this nor anything else is a valid or justifiable reason for infringing on constitutional rights.

I agree. But they are not merely claiming it. They are proving it.

 

[wellwisher]

So you don't want government making laws on the basis of religious premises? I guess that means government imposed abortion bans based on religious views is also unconstitutional, right?

The Supreme ruled that the Federal Government cannot do this one size fits all law with abortion. Rather this issue was given back to the states to decide. This is a much better solution, since it allows more that one size fits all. In the case of the man made climate change bogeyman, if we do the same, states should be able to opt in or out in terms of the current Federal bogeyman mandates.

What would happen is people from Liberal states would eventually need to go to Conservative States to shop for food and fuel, while people from Conservative states would need to go to Liberal states to shop for abortions and transgender needs. This way each religion could control an aspect of life in certain states, with economic control far worse for everyone in Liberal states; 100%, compared to sexual fringe taboos, which will have a marginal impact in Conservative states; <5%. Everyone is happy.

The bogeyman panic appears to be a scam that is attempting to justify imposing a variation of Martial Law, allowing the Feds to take away personal and business rights in the name of national self defense; Fed becomes the lessor of two evils. This is a stepping stone for the Liberals who want the final goal to be a variation of Socialism. Once the economy is broken and rights are a thing of the past, they are almost home. Conservatives, do not think rights need to be violated to get the job done. This is why back to the states, allows us to run two sets of experiments, side by side, so we do not put all the eggs in just one religious basket. This way we can compare and adjust via extreme scenarios that may arise in the experiments.

To make this work in the long term, industry should be allow to shift. Some will move operations to Conservative states. For example, Auto Makers, who still wish to make gas powered cars will move to Texas or Alabama, where there is a more favorable business and demand environment. Abortion and Transgender Hospitals and maybe even Medical tourism, will move to NYC or LA, so the patient is comfortable and can look at the beautiful skylines, while you have an abortion or a cut-or-tuck. This shuffle of businesses will optimize businesses more in line with the priorities of the Liberal and Conservative Religions. Everyone will be happier, unless you like bullying others who do not agree. Federal law protects interstate commerce, so there will be a buffer.

One set of the state experiments will be a recipe for prosperity, peace and population increase, while the other will be more like a lawless scene from Mad Max, where only the criminals can have guns, that they can buy on the black market, by supplier going to Conservative states. The Politicians in Liberals states will be in a black market socialist rigged paradise, with an army of street thugs keeping the rest in line. If you use a gas stove, your hand will be cut off. That is such an evil violation to the CO2 congregation; hot air crowd.

I hope when Trump gets in, he allows the states to decide these and other issues, so we run these two sets of experiments and be able to downsize the Federal Government. This will allow each state philosophy the opportunity to run pure experiments to test the logical results of their philosophy, without the opposing side push back inefficiencies.

Federal income tax was not part of the original US Constitution. It was ratified in 1913. There is no reason most of the Federal taxes can go directly back to the states; remain in the states, from which they came, to help the states provide all the Federal services their religions now see as needed but decided by the States.

The exception is; the Constitution says the Federal Government needs to provide for the Common Defense and Promote the General Welfare. Provide means money and supplies. After we provide for our common national defense, the rest can remain in the States. Promote the general welfare is not the same as provide for the general welfare. The role of the Fed can include various forms of non tangibles like education, legal and sound advice to promote social growth optimization for any state needing advice.

Each state can then use their new extra revenue to have its own version of EPA and the welfare system, so we can see which is the better management style for the end users. The goal of all of this will be a future Federal Government with a more efficient strategy, and not the current sick and deficit prone body, fighting against itself. That sick Federal body needs some isolation. The states can take over much, and show us the benefits and pitfalls of each philosophy, so we can maximize the Future New Fed.

The experiment, by short term simplifying the Federal Government's role and budget, will help it get back to its core mission, and not get too bogged down in the weeds. Let the States pick the weeds, and invent new machines for the future.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

The key point is not "science says X" & that's for a science section debate; the key point is that someone is claiming that science says X & that neither this nor anything else is a valid or justifiable reason for infringing on constitutional rights.

I don't think I've seen you even say which constitutional right you think is being infringed by anti-climate change policies.

 

[anotherneil]

I don't think I've seen you even say which constitutional right you think is being infringed by anti-climate change policies.

They're there; I've said one of them repeatedly.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

They're there; I've said one of them repeatedly.

I read the nonsense in the OP (more or less "I don't like it, therefore it's a 'religion', therefore the government engaging in it violates the First Amendment"). I'm not going to even engage with that ridiculousness, so I kind of gave up on your posts in this thread after that.

If you can point me to the post number where you started a different argument, that would be appreciated.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Precisely; there is no constitutional right for the government to impose such sin taxes, bans, etc.

That's not true. Article 1 Section 8 of the US Constitution expressly gives the government - Congress, specifically - the power to impose taxes and regulate trade.

 

[anotherneil]

I read the nonsense in the OP (more or less "I don't like it, therefore it's a 'religion', therefore the government engaging in it violates the First Amendment"). I'm not going to even engage with that ridiculousness, so I kind of gave up on your posts in this thread after that.

Straw man with the "I don't like it" part.

If you can point me to the post number where you started a different argument, that would be appreciated.

If you're not going to bother reading my posts, then I'm not going to bother with providing you with such assistance - at least not for free, anyways.