United States | News &amp; Politics

hideshow 5 child comments

parent

[–] datszechuansauce@infosec.pub 1 point 3 years ago (2 children)

Justify the existence of national parks then

hideshow 2 child comments

parent

[–] AnonTwo@kbin.social 1 point 3 years ago (1 child)

Not sure why you're here 4 days later...but nothing in the constitution says they can't have national parks.

Again, the issue is just it has nothing to do with it. There's easily other avenues to go about than the constitution.

parent

hideshow 1 child comment

[–] datszechuansauce@infosec.pub 1 point 3 years ago

Why are you here? And if nothing in the constitution says we can't have national parks, nothing in it says we can't regulate a stable climate.

I don't even really disagree with you that there are better ways to go about it. It's just stupid to agree with their claim.

parent

[–] shreddy_scientist@lemmy.ml [S] 0 points 3 years ago (1 child)

Your right, but this needs to change. In order to stop Billionaires from ensuring there isn't a single functional ecosystem, legal actions will be necessary.

parent

hideshow 1 child comment

[–] sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works 2 points 3 years ago

Probably, but it doesn't need to be enshrined in the Constitution. The federal government already has the power to regulate emissions, it doesn't need the Constitution to reiterate that.