According to an article put out by the New York Times, the Supreme Court has recently halted President Obama's climate change regulation. This could cause the already tentative global warming accord, signed in Paris less than two months ago, to crumble completely. Historically speaking, the United States has been the largest contributor of greenhouse gases, although China and India have recently caught up. If America fails to follow through on their end of the climate deal, China and India may also default on their promises. However, the climate change regulation has not been permanently stopped, only temporarily, as the Supreme Court ways the legal issues behind the matter. 
This article shows that even the best of plans, with the purest intentions, do not always go as planned. While this may not seem like a very fair thing to do, it is the right of the Supreme Court, under checks and balances, to make sure everything that the President does is legal. Without these separation of powers, the President would be able to make all of the key decisions, and no one could stop him. This applies greatly to what we are talking about, as without the Constitution and Constitutionalism, the Supreme Court would have no right to check the executive's power. The Supreme Court has the right to test the Constitutionality of a measure, even if that measure may be for the greater good of not just humanity, but the Earth as well.
Link to the Article: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/11/us/politics/carbon-emissions-paris-climate-accord.html
No comments:
Post a Comment