How many times did citizens witness challenges to the Obama presidency, based on the requirement of him not being a “natural born citizen,” be discarded by the courts because the individuals bringing the challenge lacked standing? While not many, there were some. How many times have individuals seeking relief from the court system, on one issue or another, been told one has to be injured and have proof of injury to proceed forward? Plenty. However, that may no longer be the case if a group of teenagers are successful in suing the Trump administration for the failure of government to act on the devastations of climate change.
The Washington Times reports:
On climate change, President Trump’s most dangerous foe could prove to be a bunch of kids.
The Trump administration tried and seemingly failed last month to get a climate lawsuit — filed on behalf of nearly two dozen teens — tossed out of federal court, paving the way for an unprecedented environmental trial in which the plaintiffs will argue the government has shirked its constitutional responsibility to protect the next generation of Americans from global warming.
Yes, these “teens” declared the government “shirked its constitutional responsibility to protect the next generation of Americans from global warming,” aka climate change. Somewhere these “teens” lacked considerable education in the Constitution, as well did the lawyers taking the case, since the Constitution contains no provision for the government to “protect” any individual from natural weather occurrences, any severe weather condition or anomaly, or any “act of God.” But, that hasn’t stopped this case from continuing forward since a federal judge in Oregon stated the case could move forward last year.
The potential courtroom showdown, which a Justice Department litigator has said would be “trial of the century” if it’s allowed to go forward, would be as far-reaching in scope as any in recent history, when it comes to climate change and the government’s obligation to address it. Attorneys for the plaintiffs say they’re prepared to mount a sweeping indictment of the federal government and its actions over a period of decades.
The landmark case would involve proving in court that climate change is real and that humanity is driving it, and that the government, through both negligence and policies that deliberately favor fossil fuels over clean energy, has failed to do anything about it.
“The failure of the government to act and the government’s actions in enabling that increase [in greenhouse gas emissions] will be the subject of the first aspect of the case — primarily what we would call, ‘What did the government know and when did it know it, and why did it continue to act to further endanger these kids?’” said Philip Gregory, co-lead counsel for the plaintiffs and a partner with the California law firm Cotchett, Pitre & McCarthy.
“The next aspect will be putting the science on trial,” he continued. “What does science say about … our current situation in the United States regarding the climate, and are there steps that can be taken to dramatically reduce the ongoing problems — steps taken by the federal government?”
Lastly, he said he and his team will prove that the government’s course has directly endangered the 21 plaintiffs, all of whom were minors when the suit was first filed against the Obama administration in 2015.
It is court cases such as this one that strangles and wastes valuable resources that are intended to be used as outlined in Article III of the Constitution for the united States of America. How does one go about “proving” climate change “science” when that “science” is based on incomplete data, false data, manufactured data, cannot satisfy the Scientific method – the hallmark of proof for scientists confirming or negating a hypothesis, and admissions by climate change supporting globalists that this farce is being used to “redistribute wealth,” having zero connection to anything regarding climate change/global warming? If one had to guess, those pieces of the puzzle will be hidden or not allowed as citizens witnessed exculpatory evidence hidden during the Bundy railroading trials.
The suit cites the government’s failure to act enabling an increase in “greenhouse gas emissions.” As has been reported in numerous outlets, climate change promoters consider carbon dioxide a “greenhouse gas.” Considering that humans and many living creatures expel carbon dioxide during the breath cycle, how do these teenagers believe they are not contributing to the problem by breathing? Moreover, we have heard the dangers of methane gas emissions as contributing to the farce of climate change. Did these “teens” not learn in biology that humans, as well as many living creatures, expel methane gas during the digestive process? How can they say they are not contributing to the problem?
Evidently, these “teens” don’t breathe, burp or have flatulence.
Since this lawsuit carried over from the Obama administration, the suit now names President Trump, his cabinet members, several agency chiefs and administration officials as defendants in the case.
“According to the plaintiffs’ complaint, virtually every U.S. citizen has the right to sue virtually any government agency,” said Justice Department lawyer Eric Grant during the appeals court arguments, adding that a “constitutional confrontation” within the government over how to approach climate change would be the natural result of the trial.
In essence, critics argue the plaintiffs are asking federal courts to set environmental policy — a job that should be left to the administration and to Congress. Some specialists say that even if a court agrees the government has violated the teens’ constitutional rights to life and liberty by failing to address global warming, it’s unclear how a court could fix the problem.
“The challenge for the plaintiffs is that they have brought a very amorphous case. They could lose,” said Christine Tezak, an analyst with ClearView Energy Partners, a Washington-based energy research company. “What is your relief here and how does the court grant it?”
First of all, this is as far from the Constitution as one can get when looking at the powers of government. The Earth and climate existed long before the government, especially the united States. Moreover, the climate changes constantly, without any input or output from humans or their governments. What existed prior to government was in the realm of God. Governments, instituted among men, exist to protect the unalienable individual rights which God bestowed upon us.
If Eric Grant is correct this would open the door for citizens to sue virtually any government agency, then one might presume to foresee liberal, leftist, communists, Marxists, social justice warriors lining up at attorneys’ offices around the republic to inundate the courts and government with varying frivolous litigation. It would go to the conclusion that if someone can sue the government over the weather, then someone can sue the government for stubbing their toe on the bedpost.
This lawsuit is premised on the “teens” that government has violated their “constitutional rights to life and liberty” in its inattention to address global warming. Again, these “teens” and their lawyers should go back to school. The right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness are bestowed upon us by God, not the Constitution. In fact, those are words from the Declaration of Independence. No one has a “constitutional right” to life or freedom. One does have a divinely given right to life and freedom from Our Lord. Right there, these teens are trying to assign to government the giver of life and the giver of liberty. If the past should teach us anything it is that governments composed of men are prone to subjugate, enslave and kill those whom they govern moreso than to protect life, grant freedom and allow the pursuit of happiness.
And, Christine Tezak brought up a good question, “What is your relief and how does the court grant it?” Well, the solution is already laid out in the lawsuit.
While the plaintiffs point to several specific government actions — including federal approval of a liquefied natural gas export terminal in Oregon, where the case was filed — that they say bolster their case, Mr. Gregory said they’ll expect to court to take a broader view.
He said the plaintiffs don’t expect the court to step in and write specific environmental laws, but rather to establish standards for greenhouse gas emissions that the government, through the White House and Congress, can then use as a blueprint to write law.
“We want the trial court to establish a baseline — this is where we are, and this is how the federal government either is contributing to the problem or failing to address the problem,” he said.
So, these “teens” want federal approval for a liquefied natural gas export terminal in Oregon. Well, what would it take to build that facility? It would take, in their eyes, unenvironmentally friendly fossil fuel technology since bulldozers, earth excavators, cranes, trucks, backhoes, and industrial equipment doesn’t run on sunshine, wind, rain, unicorns and rainbows. And, what about the technology to “liquefy” that natural gas? Same thing – neither rain nor sun nor wind nor unicorns and rainbows power that technology.
Moreover, these “teens” want the judicial branch to become the legislative branch where “standards for greenhouse gas emissions” are established. This totally upends the Constitution. Why have a legislative branch or an executive branch when one person or a group of individuals sitting on a bench can do the job? In other words, we should devolve into the rule of the black-robed institution, an oligarchy or dictatorship, which it would be the Supreme Court who would prevail. Going further, one could say the Supreme Justice of that court would be the ultimate final say. And, when talking about these “greenhouse gases,” who determines what that is exactly? Scientists cannot agree, but an individual or group of individuals donning a black robe is qualified to say.
One of the plaintiffs believes their case has momentum.
“I believe that the momentum is on our side and it’s time for climate science to have its day in court,” said Nathan Baring, 17, of Fairbanks, Alaska, one of the plaintiffs in the case.
This seventeen-year-old believes that climate science can be decided in a court of law. Let that sink in – a court of law is to decide science. In science, the proof is in the facts that is verified by the Scientific Method. The Scientific Method cannot prove or disprove the claims of human contributing to “climate change” or “global warming” because all variables cannot be accounted for in the computer-generated models. This “climate science” is based on computer-generated models for the future without having all variables known to input. And, a computer program is only as good as those who created it or input information into it. Any misinformation, intentional or unintentional, skews the outcome.
So far, there is nothing that supports any type of “climate science” when it is talking about the severity of weather patterns being attributed to the use of fossil fuels by humans or humans directly or indirectly. Moreover, this stance by these “teens” totally negates the most influential factor in weather – the sun, and discounts numerous independent scientists who have debunked the Climate “Church” of Al Gore.
This lawsuit is about as ridiculous as one can get and the lawyers who took the case are no better than their clients – in it for the overrated 15 minutes of fame. The big question is how do these self-entitled “teens” figure they were injured? They are still living and they still have some semblance of freedom. They talk about the danger from “greenhouse gas” emissions and its effects while emitting “greenhouse gas” themselves and ignoring the continued threat of Fukushima – one of the biggest environmental catastrophes ever.
These teens talk about government establishing the solution to some fabricated problem while ignoring the still problematic Hanford Nuclear site that continues to damage the environment and the people around that contaminated site. They look to government to be a solution when the government agency created to help the environment, the Environmental Protection Agency, has over 400 sites they refuse to clean up because it is so bad or the cost is astronomical. No one has to mention the disasters caused by the EPA themselves. None of these children have given one thought to the tons of nuclear waste discarded by nuclear facilities that will eventually sour the world since nothing created by man can eradicate nuclear radiation contamination.
It goes to show these children are thinking and acting like children. Unfortunately, it appears many adults are willing to indulge these children in their childish manners. It begs the question, “where are their parents?”