Why do you think Republicans are so hellbent on fundamentally changing the constitution of the United States of America?

Why do you think Republicans are so hellbent on fundamentally changing the constitution of the United States of America?

>By contrast, the US Department of Justice argues that "there is no right to 'a climate system capable of sustaining human life'" - as the Juliana plaintiffs assert.

Essentially, Republicans want to take the right to life out of the constitution. If you thought repealing the 2nd amendment was bad, think of the tyranny that's possible if the citizens don't even have a right to life! If you value your freedom, this should piss you off.

In 2020, are you going to vote for Republicans, or are you going to use your civil responsibility to vote for people who uphold the US constitutional LAW that states that US citizens have the right to LIFE, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness?

>US Supreme Court allows historic kids’ climate lawsuit to go forward

article from nature

>Government argues for halt to youth climate lawsuit, saying there is no constitutional right to a stable climate

www.washingtonpost.com/climate-environment/2019/06/04/government-argues-halt-youth-climate-lawsuit-saying-there-is-no-constitutional-right-stable-climate/

Attached: LiteralDeathCult.jpg (2641x1341, 497K)

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=TSJlZvQ3XgE
climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/
forbes.com/sites/alexepstein/2015/01/06/97-of-climate-scientists-agree-is-100-wrong/amp/
opr.ca.gov/facts/list-of-scientific-organizations.html
c2es.org/site/assets/uploads/2012/02/climate-change-adaptation-what-federal-agencies-are-doing.pdf
news.yahoo.com/sanders-aoc-want-cap-interest-000000320.html
theguardian.com/environment/blog/2014/jun/06/97-consensus-global-warming
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

I would go so far to say that, if you are against abortion, then you are implicitly agreeing with me on this point. The right to life SHOULD NOT BE INFRINGED

Youre argument is baseless conjecture and you have zero understanding of the constitution or rights of Americans, as you are the moron clueless mass that still Believes on Monarchs granting rites, which is not, at all, what the constitution does or did. At all. The constitution is a living documentation of the SPECIFIC LIMITATION OF POWER GRANTED TO ANY GOVERNING BODY. period. The kid Was WRONG! If This kid wasn't stupided by his parents in their stupidity, he would have know his only option WAS PRIVATE INDUSTRY . which is why america IS AWESOME! IF HE WANTS TO FIX CLIMATE CHANGE, HE CAN BUILD HIS OWN CORPORATION. Except its against MY RIGHTS TO HAVE CLIMATE CHANGE. I WANT FUCKING GLOBAL WARMING. IT WILL WORK TO REFOREST THE WoRLD. So, if said child tries, i will sue him for violating my rights to cleaner air through reforestation by co2 emissions. Al gore is a con man.

Attached: ZomboMeme 09062019135209.jpg (1000x1000, 182K)

>Disagree with a unanimous scientific consensus comprised of opinions both domestic and abroad

Not that you care about opinions coming from abroad. Anyway, these rights are INALIENABLE and endowed by the person's creator. The Republicans are trying to violate these rights. A member of the republic shouldn't need to go through the market to STOP THEIR RIGHTS FROM BEING VIOLATED. If someone invades your home with the express intent to murder me, I don't need to advertise that I'm about to be killed. In the same way, if someone is trying to make the climate unsuitable for human life, I don't need to make a company to stop them. I can use the state apparatus.

If you want to preserve your right to life, then you should vote for someone who will do it. You should call your senator and tell them that you think it's disgusting that Republicans are trying to take away your rights.

Attached: 1558300172764.jpg (463x488, 74K)

Right to life was never in the constitution. That's why abortion is legal.

>there is no constitutional right to a stable climate
It's sad that this even needs to be pointed out to dumbasses.

>What are amendments 5 and 14?

The law is the law you liberal faggots

Attached: DZttMk5WAAAQGh4.jpg (750x723, 39K)

Seriously this fucking stupidity is why I support Climate Change. I'll be DAMNED if a bunch of fucking zoomer idiots are going to inherit a better world from me.

youtube.com/watch?v=TSJlZvQ3XgE
Fuck every last one of you soundcloud rap listening, nigger loving, face tattoed socialist faggots.

>le 98% of scientists agree
That's a made up statistic.

When you fucking die of exposure because you wandered off into the woods chasing after fucking pokemon and got lost, your constitutional rights are not being violated.

>Oh yes, master!
>I LOVE IT when you violate my rights
>Please violate everyone's rights! It's the only way I can cuuuuuummmmmmm

Am I just talking to a bunch of bootlickers?

Attached: HzlZySLIegedPtiTj_6d1Ezaw3ZTqNJaBaJw_HkrP-A.jpg (742x960, 87K)

The right to life is the right to life, not the right to a certain quality of life.

Uh oh oh fuck

climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

Attached: 1559503920224.jpg (812x1024, 61K)

NOBODY SAID ANYTHING ABOUT A QUALITY OF LIFE.

If the climate cannot sustain human life, then you don't have any quality of life, you just die. You lose the right to life WHEN THE CLIMATE NO LONGER SUPPORTS LIFE. Are you intentionally being this obtuse? Are the Koch brothers paying you?

You don't have a right to comfort.

>the right to life
There is no such thing as this. If a man dies of old age, and supposedly has a right to life, obviously it was violated. By what? By whom? You can't answer that because there is no such thing as a right to life, nigger-devoid of critical thinking.

Violation of constitutional rights:
If someone holds a plastic bag over your head cause you to suffocate

Not violation of constitutional rights:
If someone causes the climate to no longer sustain life, causing everyone to suffocate

Attached: 1519525561230.jpg (851x714, 80K)

>ctrl+F "comfort"
>1 result found

Do you report to the Koch brothers directly, or is there a couple layers of hierarchy in the way?

forbes.com/sites/alexepstein/2015/01/06/97-of-climate-scientists-agree-is-100-wrong/amp/
Inb4 'Forbes isn't a legitimate website conspiratard'

>If someone holds a plastic bag over your head cause you to suffocate
That is correct, you don't have a constitutional right not to be suffocated with a plastic bag.

If a white husband is murdered by his white wife after he walks in on her and her black bull fucking, does she get in trouble with the law? Yes? Why? It's not like the husband had a right to life.

Attached: 1533651957935.png (672x787, 979K)

>Article [V] (Amendment 5 - Rights of Persons)
>No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, *****nor be deprived of life******, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

You're trolling or you're hard throwing

>the baby murdering crowd lectures others about the right to life

Attached: helicopter idle.jpg (1065x800, 85K)

You do not have a right to life. You have a right to due process and not to be charged and executed unjustly for a crime you did not commit.

I don't see anything in there about it being unconstitutional to suffocate you with a plastic bag.

>*Technically, a “consensus” is a general agreement of opinion, but the scientific method steers us away from this to an objective framework. In science, facts or observations are explained by a hypothesis (a statement of a possible explanation for some natural phenomenon), which can then be tested and retested until it is refuted (or disproved).

The citation from the 97% stat on the NASA website. Just tell me that you agree with some random Forbes contributor over:

>American Association for the Advancement of Science
>American Chemical Society
>American Geophysical Union
>American Medical Association
>American Meteorological Society
>American Physical Society
>The Geological Society of America
>U.S. National Academy of Sciences
>U.S. Global Change Research Program
>Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
200 international agencies
>opr.ca.gov/facts/list-of-scientific-organizations.html
and the US federal government
>c2es.org/site/assets/uploads/2012/02/climate-change-adaptation-what-federal-agencies-are-doing.pdf

So that I can just ignore you and move on.

So is abortion illegal? Also you dont have a right to force the government to take peoples money and fail to stop the climate from changing.

I don't see anybody in this thread who encouraged being pro choice. Could you please point them out so I can report them for being off topic, please?

Just tell me that you believe that being suffocated with a plastic bag doesn't count as being deprived of life, please.

You have no right to life. Just to seek happiness. Same thing as when they tried this with healthcare. You have a right to seek your happiness not enslave others to that end.

You can be against something that isn't illegal you drooling retard

a room full of people agree shit tastes great and now you got shit breath, great. dumb faggot.

I don't see anything in there about it being unconstitutional to deprive you of life either, zoomer.

Why are you changing your flag every other post faggot?

>memeflaggots angry about other memeflaggots

>One author whose entire identity revolves around how wonderful fossil fuels are is more equipped than every governmental and scientific institution in the US

Amazin

Attached: 1546148065701.png (365x318, 77K)

>Why do you think Republicans are so hellbent on fundamentally changing the constitution of the United States of America?
Which Article are they changing?

It got me one extra post. I think this point needs to get out there so everybody that values their individual freedoms can rise up and vote in their own interests. They should also be encouraged to speak to their senator about how they value the right to life and how Republicans are trying to violate their rights.

5 and 14

Fossil fuels are fucking awesome, and your whole fucking world would collapse instantly without them.

>newfag is too new to remember Israeli and JIDF posting

The Washington Post is the baby murdering crowd along with any "youth" who is a party to a climate lawsuit. It's literally 100%.

Could someone remind me about how this works, please? Does he get bonus points if I have to explain something? Is he just setting up for a 1 liner to own the libs?

It's intellectually dishonest, a strawman

Attached: riuun85cvr131.jpg (640x642, 77K)

Lmao, unless climate change causes death rays to shoot from the sky and vaporize you you are not being deprived of life. Survive, you weak zoomer faggot

What about the Nature article reporting on the same lawsuit?

yeah you are one of them

This isn't a fucking game faggot.
This is fucking Jow Forums, and we're playing for keeps.

are u ok retard?

Attached: 1554742413990.png (433x531, 172K)

>This is fucking Jow Forums, and we're playing for keeps.

LULW

Attached: 1537045288403.jpg (1280x720, 114K)

I want to sue kikes for usury. Usury is a crime

Adapt, fag.

OP is spineless worm

Finally there's some leftist representation on Jow Forums

>Sanders and AOC Want to Cap Interest Rates on Consumer Loans At 15%. That’s a Bad Idea.
news.yahoo.com/sanders-aoc-want-cap-interest-000000320.html

We could start with adapting the US justice system to ENFORCE ITS FUCKING LAWS that prevent people from trying to cause the climate to be lethal.

That would probably be easier. I think trying to try to biologically adapt to doomsday climate conditions would be similar to trying to adapt to having a large, gaping knife wound - difficult and inefficient.

As opposed to all those vertebrate worms, right?

Attached: 1540477941108.jpg (900x896, 169K)

don't you believe in evolution?

how many did they fire for not agreeing?

Not an argument. Show flag homo

Consensus is irrelevant. Science isn't a democracy where we vote on what the truth is.

The stat is still bullshit. Richard Tol wrote a good op-ed in the Guardian about this several years back.

Link:

theguardian.com/environment/blog/2014/jun/06/97-consensus-global-warming

You must be some sort of retarded. This is key to understanding what rights are, coupled with responsibilities. You don't have the right to life, however you have the right not to be murdered, and likewise you have a responsibility not to murder. Your scenario furthers my point. There is no responsibility involved in "right to life". Remove meme flag nigger.

This is dangerously stupid

LOL thinking we have the power to control or alter the climate. Being this dumb.