3 ms·
"...or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay." There's the out. It may (and will) be argued that climate change is an imminent Danger that will no
by philipov 9y ago
"...or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay."
There's the out. It may (and will) be argued that climate change is an imminent Danger that will not admit of delay. The associativity of the clauses is just ambiguous enough that the last one can be paired with any of the others, not just engaging in war. And, I am confident there are people in California willing to take that argument to the Supreme Court.
- mondoshawan 9y agoYeah, I see it. I also see the dangers associated with it. Without a singular source of international relations, foreign powers can fracture the union in very bad ways. Though I suppose we're all pretty much divided at this point anyway, so there's not much point in being concerned anymore, is there?
- marcoperaza 9y agoI see we are reaching new heights of sophistry in our disregard for the Constitution. It's clearly not an response to an "imminent Danger that will not admit of delay" if the agreement in question takes no urgent and effective action. Or if the danger in question is something on the scale of decades away, where action starting today is just about as effective (or ineffective) as action starting a year or two years from now.
- nerdponx 9y agoPeople have been making constitutional arguments like this for a long time. It's not new.
- gasbag 9y agoCommerce that remains internal to a state also shouldn't be regulated by the interstate commerce clause, yet that's been done for almost a century. There are no new heights of sophistry here, US history is littered with examples of convoluted logic to find constitutional grounds for whatever those in (various levels of) power want to do.
- pyroinferno 9y agoHow is paying China to increase their carbon footprint going to help end this imminent Danger?