Go Back  Airline Pilot Central Forums > Airline Pilot Forums > Regional
Article on Flight Shaming and Carbon Emission >

Article on Flight Shaming and Carbon Emission

Search

Notices
Regional Regional Airlines

Article on Flight Shaming and Carbon Emission

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old 12-03-2019 | 12:27 PM
  #111  
Banned
 
Joined: Apr 2017
Posts: 4,208
Likes: 7
Default

Originally Posted by rickair7777
But it says those rights belong to the people... who can (and do) delegate them to their elected reps (state or federal).
Yes, specifically listed in Article 1 Section 8 of the federal Constitution. If it isn't listed there, then the feds aren't allowed to do it barring a Constitutional amendment.
Reply
Old 12-03-2019 | 01:18 PM
  #112  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined: Jul 2013
Posts: 12,533
Likes: 1,129
Default

Originally Posted by SonicFlyer
Yes, specifically listed in Article 1 Section 8 of the federal Constitution. If it isn't listed there, then the feds aren't allowed to do it barring a Constitutional amendment.
Except when the Supreme Court says it's Constitutional, that's it. Aside from a new Amendment or an armed insurrection, you just gotta live with the fact that it has been deemed Constitutional.
Reply
Old 12-03-2019 | 06:36 PM
  #113  
Banned
 
Joined: Apr 2017
Posts: 4,208
Likes: 7
Default

Originally Posted by CBreezy
Except when the Supreme Court says it's Constitutional, that's it.
Uh no, the SCOTUS cannot rule contrary to the Constitution.
Reply
Old 12-03-2019 | 06:36 PM
  #114  
Banned
 
Joined: Mar 2018
Posts: 1,358
Likes: 0
Default

Originally Posted by CBreezy
Except when the Supreme Court says it's Constitutional, that's it. Aside from a new Amendment or an armed insurrection, you just gotta live with the fact that it has been deemed Constitutional.
He’s right. Nowhere in the Constitution is there an enumerated right to things like privacy or abortion, however Supreme Court cases such as Griswold and Roe interpreted both into law. Once they rule, future cases use those decisions as precedent and further strengthen the interpretation. Short of amending the Constitution and making the previous rulings void, society has little chance of overturning such a decision in the courts. The same thing is going on now with the pro/anti gun crowd. There are just too many cases upholding various legal interpretations. Not saying that the rulings of these examples are morally right or wrong, red/blue, etc. They are just examples of things that are not enumerated anywhere being interpreted into the Constitution and therefore becoming law.
Reply
Old 12-03-2019 | 06:48 PM
  #115  
Banned
 
Joined: Mar 2018
Posts: 1,358
Likes: 0
Default

Originally Posted by SonicFlyer
Uh no, the SCOTUS cannot rule contrary to the Constitution.
They can’t rule contrary to the Constitution, but their job is to interpret what it says. Why do you think that the confirmation process gets so ugly? Politicians try to pick people for the Court who they feel will interpret the Constitution to their liking because they either don’t have the votes or the political spine to change the law in the legislature. It is politically easier to attempt to stack the Court in your favor than to follow the Constitution and have the legislative branch pass or change our laws. Just look at the headlines today. It is all about each side either demanding or worried that the Court will overturn Roe or invalidate the 2nd Amendment.
Reply
Old 12-04-2019 | 05:35 AM
  #116  
:-)
 
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 7,339
Likes: 1
Default

Originally Posted by SonicFlyer
Not all scientists agree that climate change is caused by man. Many don't.
The one thing about climate change is that all data fits the hypothesis, thus climate change is a scientific law, same as gravity. Denying it is a waste of time, because, by design it can't be proven wrong. Anyways, I haven't seen anything coming from the scientific community that believes climate change is not manmade. You can argue the severity of the effects, however.

The 1.5 degree rise target they have set, requires a complete elimination of all green house gas emissions. If you go down the road of major climate policy activism, aircraft will absolutely be eliminated first, as people will sacrifice flying, long before they give up the basic necessities of life.
Reply
Old 12-04-2019 | 08:14 AM
  #117  
Banned
 
Joined: Apr 2017
Posts: 4,208
Likes: 7
Default

Originally Posted by Itsajob
They can’t rule contrary to the Constitution, but their job is to interpret what it says.
Their job isn't to "interpret" what the Constitution says. Where in the Constitution (Art III) is SCOTUS given that power?
Reply
Old 12-04-2019 | 08:16 AM
  #118  
Banned
 
Joined: Apr 2017
Posts: 4,208
Likes: 7
Thumbs down

Originally Posted by Mesabah
I haven't seen anything coming from the scientific community that believes climate change is not manmade.
You must get your news from CNN...

Answer these questions:

- why is the climate changing on Mars?

- why did the climate change on Earth millions of years before the Industrial Revolution?

- does the sun maintain a constant intensity/output?

- is the orbit of the Earth around the sun a constant distance, or does it ever change?


When you think about the answers to those questions then get back to us.
Reply
Old 12-04-2019 | 09:53 AM
  #119  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined: Jul 2013
Posts: 12,533
Likes: 1,129
Default

Originally Posted by SonicFlyer
You must get your news from CNN...

Answer these questions:

- why is the climate changing on Mars?

- is the orbit of the Earth around the sun a constant distance, or does it ever change?


When you think about the answers to those questions then get back to us.
These can't be serious questions. MARS?! You are really reaching now, aren't you. Haha. What a joke
Reply
Old 12-04-2019 | 10:14 AM
  #120  
:-)
 
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 7,339
Likes: 1
Default

Originally Posted by SonicFlyer
You must get your news from CNN...

Answer these questions:

- why is the climate changing on Mars?

- why did the climate change on Earth millions of years before the Industrial Revolution?

- does the sun maintain a constant intensity/output?

- is the orbit of the Earth around the sun a constant distance, or does it ever change?


When you think about the answers to those questions then get back to us.
You're peaching to the choir buddy. You didn't read my post, all data fits their hypothesis, you can't prove the climate isn't changing, so why try. Of course, man has some effect no matter what, how could they not? It's a scam, top to bottom. You have to completely avoid arguing whether it exists or not. Admit it exists, and keep grilling them on nuclear power, which they hate, so they don't stick us with renewable garbage that ends in energy rationing.
Reply

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



Your Privacy Choices