It warms my heart to know I make small sacrifices, like drinking my morning cold brews out of a paper straw, for the betterment of the greater good--so Taylor Swift can take a trip to a Starbucks in her private jet.
The shift to "consumer responsibility" was a purposeful choice backed by fossil fuel companies to shift blame away from themselves. I'm sure the individual stuff (like paper straws) adds up to a benefit, but its' .00001% of the impact the ultra-rich and large corporations could have.
Yea, a big part of this would have to be changing our system. For example getting rid of "Judicial Review", which was never established in the Constitution! Absent that, there's no way Clarence Thomas is going to let us take away the private jets he flys on.
Joe, judicial review is inherent in the structure of our government. Neither it, nor any of the executive departments was explicitly written into the Constitution. Without judicial review, why even have a written constitution? If Congress or the President does something unconstitutional, what is the remedy without judicial review? Say Congress were to pass a law saying, "No more elections. We serve for life"? What would stop them?
Agree, judicial review is established in our constitution via the structure of the 3 branches of governmnent —that is the assigned role of the judicial branch—to interpret the law against the constitution. We definitely don't want to eliminate that! And outlawing private jets would not pass muster under the current constitution, no matter who is reviewing the law.
That's actually not true. The Constitution quite literally establishes the powers of each of the three branches. It gives Congress the power of the purse and the ability to declare war, the Executive branch the right to conduct diplomacy, and the Judiciary the right to settle disputes between states and cases involving ambassadors.
It DOES NOT give the Supreme Court the right of Judicial Review. The Court gave that power to itself in the 1803 case Marbury v. Madison. If we believe the Court should have that power, then we must amend the Constitution to give it to it.
Executive departments weren't established in the Constitution, but they were delineated to the Executive Branch by the Legislative. For example, Congress passed a law founding the EPA, which in sense gave the Executive branch the ability to enforce the Legislative's laws pertaining to the environment. Same for other Executive agencies.
As for "who will decide what is Constitutional?" this question exists in every other country, though none of them have processes similar to Judicial Review where judges get to override the people's will. The answer to that is good faith actors, robust democratic processes, and the public consciousness that we respond to ant-democratic actors.
If you don't think that's enough, then you need to Amend the Constitution to give the Supreme Court judicial review powers. We can't just say, "We're doing an official-unofficial thing."
Returning to private jets, I actually CAN think it could pass under the current statutes, as the Supreme Court has no way of legal blocking laws. We just need a government bold enough to do it.
First, I am not a constitutional scholar, I am just a regular old attorney. And I have not looked this up recently....but M. v. M. interpreted the constitution to allow for judicial review, which I 100% agree with. Let me just jump to the last statement you made about our current system and banning private jets. The U.S. Supreme Court most certainly has the legitimate power to invalidate a law (not block it), based on a review against the constitution. That is their only job, really. And I am thrilled that they have ability, which I believe is legitimately interpreted via the existing constitution. Think about all of the racist laws passed by southern states to keep Black people from voting or even dining at privately owned restaurants... the latter because that restaurant engaged in interstate commerce, thus violating the commerce clause if they refused to allow all to use their establishment. Overall, I think the SC has been a force for good in our country. I strongly disagree, however, with the current, hyper conservative approach to interpreting the constitution, i.e., "originalist", I believe. Like when Alito said in the Dobbs decision (which I did not read, just excerpts!) that the word "abortion" is not mentioned in the constitution. When I have a spare moment, I'll take another look at M vs. M...it's been awhile!
I agree the Supreme Court USED to be a beneficial organization, predominantly with its civil rights cases. But I think in a post- Citizens United world, we have to accept that it's been captured and no longer is interested in reading the Constitution, but passing a very specific political agenda.
Joe, you only listed the cases where the SC has original jurisdiction. The judiciary, meaning the Article III courts, has jurisdiction over cases and controversies arising under the constitution and laws of the United States, a much broader remit.
Again, without judicial review, why have a written constitution? What's to stop the elected branches from ignoring it?
"Without judicial review, why have a written constitution? What's to stop the elected branches from ignoring it?"
The Constitution provided one solution: the right of the people to rebel. It did not establish judicial review. If you want there to be judicial review, you need to amend the Constitution.
It should also be noted the continuation of Judicial Review is incompatible with Originalism, which supports my earlier point Originalism is just a way of getting what Conservatives want. If the Conservative project were truly "originalist" they would interpret the Constitution as written — without judicial review. But because the Court is an instrument of Rightist control, they ignore the original interpretation in favor of a more beneficial one.
This is a very interesting topic for me. Early in my career, I spent five years working for the premiere private aviation sales & operations company in the world. I learned many things, the most important of which, was that the cost of fuel for one private jet flight between New York City and Los Angeles was more than I made in a year at that time.
I was part of the problem and I quit that job for a better, more responsible one.
Here's the hot take - No one who uses a private jet can lecture the rest of us about climate change and how we should be doing more.
That cost is insane! But I certainly wouldn't consider you "part of the problem." After all, you were just doing a job trying to get by.
I totally agree about the private jet-climate change thing. Every time there's a Climate Change conference the maps pop up of everyone who took a private jet to get there. THEY'RE part of the problem!
It warms my heart to know I make small sacrifices, like drinking my morning cold brews out of a paper straw, for the betterment of the greater good--so Taylor Swift can take a trip to a Starbucks in her private jet.
The shift to "consumer responsibility" was a purposeful choice backed by fossil fuel companies to shift blame away from themselves. I'm sure the individual stuff (like paper straws) adds up to a benefit, but its' .00001% of the impact the ultra-rich and large corporations could have.
Yes, they are hideous and wasteful, but I can’t see any way that the government could declare them illegal. It would not past constitutional review
Yea, a big part of this would have to be changing our system. For example getting rid of "Judicial Review", which was never established in the Constitution! Absent that, there's no way Clarence Thomas is going to let us take away the private jets he flys on.
Joe, judicial review is inherent in the structure of our government. Neither it, nor any of the executive departments was explicitly written into the Constitution. Without judicial review, why even have a written constitution? If Congress or the President does something unconstitutional, what is the remedy without judicial review? Say Congress were to pass a law saying, "No more elections. We serve for life"? What would stop them?
Agree, judicial review is established in our constitution via the structure of the 3 branches of governmnent —that is the assigned role of the judicial branch—to interpret the law against the constitution. We definitely don't want to eliminate that! And outlawing private jets would not pass muster under the current constitution, no matter who is reviewing the law.
That's actually not true. The Constitution quite literally establishes the powers of each of the three branches. It gives Congress the power of the purse and the ability to declare war, the Executive branch the right to conduct diplomacy, and the Judiciary the right to settle disputes between states and cases involving ambassadors.
It DOES NOT give the Supreme Court the right of Judicial Review. The Court gave that power to itself in the 1803 case Marbury v. Madison. If we believe the Court should have that power, then we must amend the Constitution to give it to it.
Executive departments weren't established in the Constitution, but they were delineated to the Executive Branch by the Legislative. For example, Congress passed a law founding the EPA, which in sense gave the Executive branch the ability to enforce the Legislative's laws pertaining to the environment. Same for other Executive agencies.
As for "who will decide what is Constitutional?" this question exists in every other country, though none of them have processes similar to Judicial Review where judges get to override the people's will. The answer to that is good faith actors, robust democratic processes, and the public consciousness that we respond to ant-democratic actors.
If you don't think that's enough, then you need to Amend the Constitution to give the Supreme Court judicial review powers. We can't just say, "We're doing an official-unofficial thing."
Returning to private jets, I actually CAN think it could pass under the current statutes, as the Supreme Court has no way of legal blocking laws. We just need a government bold enough to do it.
First, I am not a constitutional scholar, I am just a regular old attorney. And I have not looked this up recently....but M. v. M. interpreted the constitution to allow for judicial review, which I 100% agree with. Let me just jump to the last statement you made about our current system and banning private jets. The U.S. Supreme Court most certainly has the legitimate power to invalidate a law (not block it), based on a review against the constitution. That is their only job, really. And I am thrilled that they have ability, which I believe is legitimately interpreted via the existing constitution. Think about all of the racist laws passed by southern states to keep Black people from voting or even dining at privately owned restaurants... the latter because that restaurant engaged in interstate commerce, thus violating the commerce clause if they refused to allow all to use their establishment. Overall, I think the SC has been a force for good in our country. I strongly disagree, however, with the current, hyper conservative approach to interpreting the constitution, i.e., "originalist", I believe. Like when Alito said in the Dobbs decision (which I did not read, just excerpts!) that the word "abortion" is not mentioned in the constitution. When I have a spare moment, I'll take another look at M vs. M...it's been awhile!
Thanks, I always appreciate your thoughts!
I agree the Supreme Court USED to be a beneficial organization, predominantly with its civil rights cases. But I think in a post- Citizens United world, we have to accept that it's been captured and no longer is interested in reading the Constitution, but passing a very specific political agenda.
I'm curious. What do you think originalism is and why is it objectionable?
Joe, you only listed the cases where the SC has original jurisdiction. The judiciary, meaning the Article III courts, has jurisdiction over cases and controversies arising under the constitution and laws of the United States, a much broader remit.
Again, without judicial review, why have a written constitution? What's to stop the elected branches from ignoring it?
"Without judicial review, why have a written constitution? What's to stop the elected branches from ignoring it?"
The Constitution provided one solution: the right of the people to rebel. It did not establish judicial review. If you want there to be judicial review, you need to amend the Constitution.
It should also be noted the continuation of Judicial Review is incompatible with Originalism, which supports my earlier point Originalism is just a way of getting what Conservatives want. If the Conservative project were truly "originalist" they would interpret the Constitution as written — without judicial review. But because the Court is an instrument of Rightist control, they ignore the original interpretation in favor of a more beneficial one.
It's very hypocritical.
This is a very interesting topic for me. Early in my career, I spent five years working for the premiere private aviation sales & operations company in the world. I learned many things, the most important of which, was that the cost of fuel for one private jet flight between New York City and Los Angeles was more than I made in a year at that time.
I was part of the problem and I quit that job for a better, more responsible one.
Here's the hot take - No one who uses a private jet can lecture the rest of us about climate change and how we should be doing more.
That cost is insane! But I certainly wouldn't consider you "part of the problem." After all, you were just doing a job trying to get by.
I totally agree about the private jet-climate change thing. Every time there's a Climate Change conference the maps pop up of everyone who took a private jet to get there. THEY'RE part of the problem!
Would you feel the same if the private jets used sustainable aviation fuel? With that, there's no CO2 emissions.
Yes, they are hideous and wasteful, but I’m pretty sure outlawing them would not pass a constitutional review.