How climate change alarmism laws are unconstitutional

[anotherneil]

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.

1st Amendment revokes such a thing when they're for religious reasons.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

1st Amendment revokes such a thing when they're for religious reasons.

Please... not this crap again. Is this really all you have?

 

[Subduction Zone]

It is a well-established scientific fact that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas, and it is well-known that human activity can and does produce carbon dioxide; same goes with some other greenhouse gases, such as methane.

I don't think there's any significant objection to the position that climate change is real, it does impact the environment, it is partially caused by human activity, and it has been happening ever since the planet formed an atmosphere.

However, the doom and gloom being projected by the climate change alarmists is not in fact a well-established scientific fact. It entails predictions that are not well-rooted in the scientific method; for instance, science involves observation and repeatability, and with predictions of human-caused global warming reaching achieving, and exceeding disastrous & catastrophic levels, such observations have not yet occurred (thus have not yet been repeated). The main fundamental trait of science is that a theory can be falsified; how does one falsify something that hasn't been observed, yet?

BTW yes, I get that it's desirable to avoid a disaster or catastrophe if possible, and I'm not saying that individuals shouldn't be able to make whatever personal decisions they want to make regarding human-caused global warming or climate change.

If there really is some sort of worldwide desire by all (or most) nations and the UN to (as they put it) "combat" climate change, then they'd be accommodating to at least allowing people living in places that are being affected by adverse changes in the environment to take mitigating action such as relocating.

The point is that there's more than one way to deal with a problem other than government-imposed bans, fines, taxes, etc.

When the government imposes, "carbon" taxes, bans ICE vehicles, gas-powered items (stoves, water heaters, home heating systems, etc.), coal-fired power stations, etc., and imposes fines for violating such laws, and they're doing it on the basis of climate change alarmism, then it's unconstitutional.

It infringes on the 1st clause of the 1st Amendment, which prohibits merger of church and state.

With climate change alarmism, it involves the claim that we must make sacrifices and pay "carbon" taxes, or else we'll all burn up from global warming; that's essentially no different from any conventional religion saying "pay for your sins or you'll burn in hell."

This sounds like a lot of "alarmism" of your own. I am not saying that there isn't any. But many of your claims sound a bit extreme on their own. As to scientists, very few of them appear to be alarmists. The average predictions have been very accurate.

By the way, how are bans of ICE's alarmist?

 

[Subduction Zone]

1st Amendment revokes such a thing when they're for religious reasons.

It is rather clear that the reasons are not religious. You take on a huge burden of proof with that sort of argument.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

1st Amendment revokes such a thing when they're for religious reasons.

Just to play along for fun: I assume you would agree that opposition to climate change constitutes a "religion" for the RFRA as well, right?

 

[Revoltingest]

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.

You argue that he should have the power to do exactly that.
His having different facts and goals are the problem with
power to set aside the Constitution.
I favor the legal amendment process.
Why not?

 

[sayak83]

1st Amendment revokes such a thing when they're for religious reasons.

What has policies related climate change avoidance and mitigation have to do with religion? If you are claiming climate change science or its predictions or the advocates policies are not based on sound science and policy considerations....show it.

One can rather say that tax breaks given to wealthy corporates (favoured by Republicans) should be scrapped as it's based on quasi_relugious and utterly unsubstantiated concept of trickle down economics.

 

[Revoltingest]

1st Amendment revokes such a thing when they're for religious reasons.

Not so simple.
Establishment of religion is prohibited.
Not a religious motivation.
Something can be the latter without being the former.
Eg, banning abortion.

BTW, I favor abortion.

 

[ChristineM]

If anyone is interested...
Coral bleaching: Fourth global mass stress episode underway - US scientists

 

[ImmortalFlame]

You argue that he should have the power to do exactly that.
His having different facts and goals are the problem with
power to set aside the Constitution.
I favor the legal amendment process.
Why not?

I would agree. I don't support unilateral powers for people - even presidents - to amend the constitution on a whim. All I'm saying is that material reality and conditions SHOULD influence the ways in which we enact constitutional policies - we should not refuse to engage with something just because the only solution would require some contravention of the constitution, provided it's what the facts and science indicate. What happened under covid is a good example of this. Under the best possible scientific guidance, temporarily curtailments were made to the right to assemble, travel, etc.. In doing so, it saved millions of lives.

Not that I think any of this matters, because I believe the argument that these policies are unconstitutional is basically false.

 

[Revoltingest]

I would agree. I don't support unilateral powers for people - even presidents - to amend the constitution on a whim. All I'm saying is that material reality and conditions SHOULD influence the ways in which we enact constitutional policies - we should not refuse to engage with something just because the only solution would require some contravention of the constitution, provided it's what the facts and science indicate. What happened under covid is a good example of this. Under the best possible scientific guidance, temporarily curtailments were made to the right to assemble, travel, etc.. In doing so, it saved millions of lives.

Not that I think any of this matters, because I believe the argument that these policies are unconstitutional is basically false.

OK.

 

[libre]

Your OP intimated that you were already in agreement that climate change was influenced by humankind.
This reply seems to suggest you believe that man is not at fault.

This appears to me a contradiction, if you would clarify.

Just circling back to this question, as I can't really parse where the argument is stemming from without this clarification.

 

[Heyo]

It is a well-established scientific fact that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas, and it is well-known that human activity can and does produce carbon dioxide; same goes with some other greenhouse gases, such as methane.

I don't think there's any significant objection to the position that climate change is real, it does impact the environment, it is partially caused by human activity, and it has been happening ever since the planet formed an atmosphere.

However, the doom and gloom being projected by the climate change alarmists is not in fact a well-established scientific fact. It entails predictions that are not well-rooted in the scientific method; for instance, science involves observation and repeatability, and with predictions of human-caused global warming reaching achieving, and exceeding disastrous & catastrophic levels, such observations have not yet occurred (thus have not yet been repeated). The main fundamental trait of science is that a theory can be falsified; how does one falsify something that hasn't been observed, yet?

BTW yes, I get that it's desirable to avoid a disaster or catastrophe if possible, and I'm not saying that individuals shouldn't be able to make whatever personal decisions they want to make regarding human-caused global warming or climate change.

If there really is some sort of worldwide desire by all (or most) nations and the UN to (as they put it) "combat" climate change, then they'd be accommodating to at least allowing people living in places that are being affected by adverse changes in the environment to take mitigating action such as relocating.

The point is that there's more than one way to deal with a problem other than government-imposed bans, fines, taxes, etc.

When the government imposes, "carbon" taxes, bans ICE vehicles, gas-powered items (stoves, water heaters, home heating systems, etc.), coal-fired power stations, etc., and imposes fines for violating such laws, and they're doing it on the basis of climate change alarmism, then it's unconstitutional.

It infringes on the 1st clause of the 1st Amendment, which prohibits merger of church and state.

With climate change alarmism, it involves the claim that we must make sacrifices and pay "carbon" taxes, or else we'll all burn up from global warming; that's essentially no different from any conventional religion saying "pay for your sins or you'll burn in hell."

Where to start ...
Better with a meta question first before diving into details:
Are you trolling or did you manage to reach peak Dunning-Kruger simultaneously in science, religion and Constitutional law?

 

[anotherneil]

In this video, Donna Jackson, director of membership development for the Project 21 black leadership network, points how policies based on climate change alarmism are "Pushing The Black Community Further Into Poverty", which is in line with what I posted here: