Just being critical here: This still seems like a valid statement: "Their opposition was based on a “lack of subject matter jurisdiction and failure to state a

Just being critical here: This still seems like a valid statement: "Their opposition was based on a “lack of subject matter jurisdiction and failure to state a claim.”" It seems like the new judge ruled for it because, “[their] action is of a different order than the typical environmental case. It alleges that defendants’ actions and inactions—whether or not they violate any specific statutory duty—have so profoundly damaged our home planet that they threaten plaintiffs’ fundamental constitutional rights to life and liberty.”, emphasis on constitutional right to life and liberty. Although that may be true, I am having trouble seeing as to how this may pertain solely to the Federal Government; It is possible to amend the constitution with an environmental specific amendment, but it would have to go through the legislative branch; I see nothing wrong with that. But looking at article 1 section 8 of the constitution, I do not see as to how this solely pertains to the Federal Government alone? Keep in mind that this country is a democratic republic and not a democracy; the federal government should be subject to the states rule, not an entity on its own.