#Constitutional Amendments | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

reasonsforhope · 10 months

Text

"Two years ago, the biggest battles in state legislatures were over voting rights. Democrats loudly — and sometimes literally — protested as Republicans passed new voting restrictions in states like Georgia, Florida and Texas. This year, attention has shifted to other hot-button issues, but the fight over the franchise has continued. Republicans have enacted dozens of laws this year that will make it harder for some people to vote in future elections.

But this year, voting-rights advocates got some significant wins too: States — controlled by Democrats and Republicans — have enacted more than twice as many laws expanding voting rights as restricting them, although the most comprehensive voter-protection laws passed in blue states. In all, 39 states and Washington, D.C., have changed their election laws in some way this year...

Where voting rights were expanded in 2023 (so far)

Unlike two years ago, though, we’d argue that the bigger story of this year’s legislative sessions was all the ways states made it easier to vote. As of July 21, according to the Voting Rights Lab, [which runs an excellent and completely comprehensive tracker of election-related bills], 834 bills had been introduced so far this year expanding voting rights, and 64 had been enacted. What’s more, these laws are passing in states of all hues.

Democratic-controlled jurisdictions (Connecticut, the District of Columbia, Hawaii, Maryland, Maine, Michigan, Minnesota, New Mexico, New York, Rhode Island and Washington) enacted 33 of these new laws containing voting-rights expansions, but Republican-controlled states (Alabama, Arkansas, Idaho, Louisiana, Mississippi, Montana, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, West Virginia and Wyoming) were responsible for 23 of them. The remaining eight became law in states where the two parties share power (Nevada, Pennsylvania and Virginia).

That said, not all election laws are created equal, and the most comprehensive expansive laws passed in blue states. For example:

New Mexico adopted a major voting-rights package that will automatically register New Mexicans to vote when they interact with the state’s Motor Vehicle Division, allow voters to request absentee ballots for all future elections without the need to reapply each time and restore the right to vote to felons who are on probation or parole. The law also allows Native Americans to register to vote and receive ballots at official tribal buildings and makes it easier for Native American officials to get polling places set up in pueblos and on tribal land.

Minnesota followed suit with a law also establishing automatic voter registration and a permanent absentee-voting list. The act allows 16- and 17-year-olds to preregister to vote too. Meanwhile, a separate new law also reenfranchises felons on probation or parole.

Michigan enacted eight laws implementing a constitutional amendment expanding voting rights that voters approved last year. Most notably, the laws guarantee at least nine days of in-person early voting and allow counties to offer as many as 29. The bills also allow voters to fix mistakes on their absentee-ballot envelopes so that their ballot can still count, track the status of their ballot online, and use student, military and tribal IDs as proof of identification.

Connecticut became the sixth state to enact a state-level voting-rights act, which bars municipalities from discriminating against minority groups in voting, requires them to provide language assistance to certain language minority groups and requires municipalities with a record of voter discrimination to get preclearance before changing their election laws. The Nutmeg State also approved 14 days of early voting and put a constitutional amendment on the 2024 ballot that would legalize no-excuse absentee voting.

No matter its specific provisions, each of these election-law changes could impact how voters cast their ballots in future elections, including next year’s closely watched presidential race. There’s a good chance your state amended its election laws in some way this year, so make sure you double-check the latest rules in your state before the next time you vote."

-via FiveThirtyEight (via FutureCrunch), July 24, 2023

#voting rights #voting matters #united states #us politics #new mexico #Minnesota #Michigan #Connecticut #voting rights act #ballot box #civil rights #elections #election 2024 #election law #constitutional amendments #felon voting #native american #first nations

207 notes · View notes

deadpresidents · 8 months

Note

Do you agree with the idea that one of the more politically astute things Biden could've done in early 2021 was push for an amendment that limited presidents (including himself) to a single term?

I ask this as someone who feels that a Biden-Trump rematch in 2024 is very much not in the national interest. Such an amendment would've guaranteed two different nominees next year, and more broadly, I think there are arguments for limiting presidents to just one term (second terms have been pretty awful in the modern era, if we consider Nixon, Reagan, Clinton, and G.W. Bush).

Btw, I realize presidents don't have a formal role in the amendment process, but I think if Biden had gotten enough Dems behind it, there might have been enough support in Congress to send it to the states. In early 2021, the GOP would've almost been happy to have Trump term-limited, and ambitious Republicans like Scott, Cruz, and Rubio probably would've supported such an amendment.

That's an interesting question. From our perspective, I can totally understand the reasoning behind it, too. And that would have been a better time to attempt it for the reasons you pointed out.

However, I just think it's nearly impossible to amend the Constitution, especially in the political climate we've been living in for the past decade. It's also difficult to imagine any President actively seeking to impose further term limits on themselves. These are people who work practically the entire lives in order to get into that particular job, so it would require a superhuman act of selflessness to get them to advocate for changing the Constitution so that they only serve one term. We can't even get modern Presidents (or serious candidates for the Presidency) to voluntarily pledge to only serve a single term, so I just don't see any of them trying to change the Constitution to legally prohibit running for re-election. President Biden had been seeking the Presidency for at least 35 years, with three official campaigns for the job, before he finally was elected in 2020. I don't think there was ever a realistic chance of him voluntarily giving up a chance at a second term. And I wouldn't be so sure that ambitious legislators who have obviously been eyeing the Presidency for years would have supported a single term limit. You know how there are people who are opposed to raising taxes on the super wealthy because they are still holding out hope that they'll someday strike it rich? I'm guessing there would be a similar line of thinking and members of Congress with Presidential aspirations wouldn't want to support a single term limit just in case they eventually find themselves in the White House.

I've written about this before, but my personal opinion is actually in support of eliminating Presidential term limits altogether. As I've said in the past, the Founders did not explicitly place term limits on the President, and while most Presidents before FDR followed George Washington's tradition of serving two terms and retiring, term limits weren't imposed until after World War II. The Constitution was amended 21 times for over 150 years before Presidential term limits were finally instituted. And, even then, it was largely because Franklin D. Roosevelt won four straight Presidential elections. I question whether the Founders would see it as a proper balance of power to place term limits on the Executive Branch, but not on the Legislative or Judicial branches. So, my personal belief has been that there should either be term limits on the President, Congress, AND the Supreme Court, or there should be no limits at all. Of course, that might result in someone shitty, like Donald Trump, running for a third term, but it also provides options that voters otherwise wouldn't have. Imposing a two-term limit on Presidents may prohibit a terrible President from being elected a third time, but it also might prevent someone proven to be a good, responsible, popular leader from continuing in office.

Ultimately, the decision should be left to the voters, but I sure would feel better about 2024 if Barack Obama could be on the ballot again. We place limits on who can be candidates for what is arguably the most powerful and important job in the world, and then we complain because we don't like our choices. We prohibit the only people in the world who have actually DONE the job of President (and seemingly should have some understanding and experience on how to do that job) from being President for more than two four-year terms. Yet, nearly all of our Supreme Court Justices leave the bench by dying, and many of the most powerful legislators (in both parties) are alarmingly old and frail -- and probably running for re-election. Barack Obama has been term-limited from running for President since leaving office in 2017. Obama was 55 years old when he left office; he'll be 63 on the next Inauguration Day, in 2025 -- eight years after leaving office and sixteen years after his first inauguration. That's still younger than Ronald Reagan (69), George H.W. Bush (64), Donald Trump (70), and Joe Biden (78) were when they were first inaugurated as President!

So, if we're going to amend the Constitution regarding term limits, I say get rid of all of them or impose them on every branch of the federal government.

#Politics #History #Constitution #Term Limits #Presidential Term Limits #22nd Amendment #Executive Branch #Legislative Branch #Judicial Branch #Constitutional Amendments #Balance of Power #U.S. Constitution #Presidential History #Presidency #Congress

17 notes · View notes

todaysdocument · 2 years

Photo

Joint Resolution of the State Legislature of Louisiana calling for a Constitutional Convention under Article V of the Constitution to propose an amendment for direct election of Senators, 11/25/1907.

Record Group 46: Records of the U.S. Senate

Series: Petitions and Memorials of the Committee on Privileges and Elections

File Unit: Petitions and Memorials, Resolutions of State Legislatures, and Related Documents, which were Referred to the Committee on Privileges and Elections during the 60th Congress

Transcription:

COPY OF JOINT RESOLUTION MAKING APPLICATION TO THE CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES TO CALL A CONVENTION FOR PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES: WHEREAS, We believe that Senators of the United States should be elected directly by the voters ; and, WHEREAS, To authorize such direct election, and amendment to the Constitution of the United States is necessary; and, WHEREAS, The failure of Congress to submit such amendment to the States has made it clear that the only practicable method of securing a sub- mission of such amendment to the States is through a Constitutional Con- vention, to be called by Congress upon the application of the legislature of two-thirds of all the States; therefore, BE IT RESOLVED, BY THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF THE STATE OF LOUISIANA: Section 1. That the Legislature of the State of Louisiana hereby makes application to the Congress of the United States, under Article V of the Constitution of the United States, to call a Constitutional Convention for pro- posing amendments to the Constitution of the United States. Sec. 2. That this resolution duly authenticated, shall be delivered forthwith to the President of the Senate and Speaker of the House of Repre- tentatives of the United States, with the request that the same shall be laid before the said Senate and House. J.W. HYAMS, Speaker of the House Representatives. J.V. SANDERS, Lieutenant Governor and President of the Senate. Approved November 25, 1907. NEWTON C. BLANCHARD, Governor of the State of Louisiana. A true copy : John T. Michael [signature] Secretary of State.

#archivesgov #November 25 #1907 #1900s #constitutional amendments #amendments #direct election of senators #17th amendment

24 notes · View notes

autisticeducator · 2 years

Text

To New York Democrats:

Good showing on the midterms. Quite impressive given midterm elections aren’t usually strong for Democrats and we were working on maps that favored the GOP a little too much.

Especially Democrats in NY 18. That was the closest election I have ever seen. But we got Pat Ryan in there.

But I am here to talk about the 2023 local elections. This is bloody important.

We need to all show up. Hochul and friends are planning to put the ballot proposition giving New Yorkers constitutional rights to abortion (constitutional amendment propositions can legally only go on odd year elections). This is important to protect abortion rights in the long term in New York.

We didn’t show up last year and the voting rights amendments didn’t pass. Those can’t be put back on the ballot until 2027. Let’s not do the same this time.

We outnumber Republicans 2-1. There is no excuse we can’t get this passed. I would argue local elections are even more important than national elections as those politicians directly affect your daily lives. Pat Ryan is the perfect example of why local elections are important. Before he became Congressman Pat Ryan, he was Ulster County Executive Pat Ryan. A local election. He served on the local scale before the congressional districts were redrawn and he decided to run for Congress.

New York Republicans already vote every single year. Democrats need to learn to do the same. These far right politicians typically start on some sort of local level. We need to block them at all levels.

#New York #democrats #election #2023 #constitutional amendments #abortion rights

25 notes · View notes

dontmeantobepoliticalbut · 1 year

Text

U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz reintroduced a bill last week to limit senators from serving more than two six-year terms, even as he stands by plans to run for his third.

The bill is a constitutional amendment that would prevent U.S. Senators from serving more than 12 years. It would also prevent those in the U.S. House from serving more than three two-year terms. Terms served by members prior to the bill’s enactment would not count toward the proposed term limitations, which means that if the bill were to be passed by this Congress, Cruz would not be term limited until 2036.

“Term limits are critical to fixing what’s wrong with Washington, D.C.,” the Texas Republican said in a statement after introducing the bill last week. “The Founding Fathers envisioned a government of citizen legislators who would serve for a few years and return home, not a government run by a small group of special interests and lifelong, permanently entrenched politicians who prey upon the brokenness of Washington to govern in a manner that is totally unaccountable to the American people.”

He declined to answer questions about why he would seek a third term in office, given his view about the need to limit how long members should serve.

It is highly unlikely that the bill will have any traction in Congress. This is the fourth time Cruz has introduced the legislation, but it has never gotten a vote in either the House or the Senate.

Cruz announced in November that he is seeking a third term in the Senate in 2024.

“I’m running for reelection in the Senate; I’m focused on the battles in the United States Senate,” Cruz told reporters after addressing the Republican Jewish Coalition’s annual leadership meeting in Las Vegas.

At the same time, Cruz hasn’t ruled out plans to pivot and run for President instead. He previously ran for President in 2016.

Cruz originally announced the bill alongside then-U.S. Rep. Ron DeSantis, now Florida Governor, in 2017 and alongside former U.S. Rep. Francis Rooney, R-Florida, in 2019. U.S. Rep. Ralph Norman, R-South Carolina, is now leading the charge to pass the bill in the U.S. House.

This year his co-sponsors in the U.S. Senate included Republican Sens. J.D. Vance of Ohio, Bill Hagerty of Tennessee, Cynthia Lummis of Wyoming, Roger Marshall of Kansas, Mike Lee of Utah, Steve Daines of Montana, Todd Young of Indiana, Mike Braun of Indiana, Rick Scott of Florida, Josh Hawley of Missouri and Tommy Tuberville of Alabama.

There’s an incredibly high threshold to pass a constitutional amendment. They must receive two-thirds of the votes in each chamber before having to be ratified by three-fourths of the state legislatures in the country.

Cruz was elected to his first term in 2012 and was reelected to a second term after a hard-fought race against Beto O’Rourke in 2018.

The average amount of time that those elected to the 118th Congress have served was 8.5 years for those in the House and 11.2 years for those in the Senate, according to the Congressional Research Service.

In the Texas Legislature, state Sen. Roland Gutierrez, D-San Antonio, piled on with his own bill that would allow Texas to cap its U.S. Senators to serving at most two terms in office. Gutierrez told The Texas Tribune that the “bill seeks to oblige” Cruz.

“This is the same story he does every two years,” Gutierrez said. “It is beyond hypocrisy, if he wants term limits so badly to save us from entrenched politicians, then he needs to go retire now. He’s done his 12 years.”

It’s unclear whether Gutierrez’s proposal has any teeth behind it if passed by the Legislature.

Gutierrez said it may depend on the outcome of a U.S. Supreme Court case that centers around whether a state judicial branch has the authority to discard federal election regulations implemented by a state legislature. If the Supreme Court sides with North Carolina legislators, it could open a path for state legislators to institute term limits on their congressional leaders.

8 notes · View notes

reaperlight · 2 years

Text

Watch "Four States Reject Slavery & Louisiana Votes to Keep It | The Daily Show" on YouTube

youtube

#the daily show #the daily show with trevor noah #trevor noah #roy wood jr #video #11/10/2022 #politics #us politics #flashing video #13th amendment loophole #13th amendment #slavery #except as punishment for a crime #prison reform #constitutional amendments #Youtube

6 notes · View notes

snarltoothed · 2 years

Text

okay you dont have to join my discord server. but i would very much like to connect with other feminists from michigan! (and like. if you want to join my server… i have one)

1 note · View note

jaideepkhanduja · 5 months

Text

Landmark Legislation: Parliament Passes Historic Criminal Law Bills for Overhauling Justice System

Landmark Legislation: Parliament Passes Historic Criminal Law Bills for Overhauling Justice System #CriminalLawReform #ParliamentLegislation #JusticeSystemOverhaul #LegalNews #BharatiyaNyayaSanhita #BharatiyaNagarikSurakshaSanhita #BharatiyaSakshyaSanhita

The Rajya Sabha passed three criminal law bills on Thursday, December 21, 2023, after the Lok Sabha had passed them on Wednesday. The bills are: Bharatiya Nyaya (Second) Sanhita, which replaces the Indian Penal Code, 1860. Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha (Second) Sanhita, which replaces the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898. Bharatiya Sakshya (Second) Sanhita, which replaces the Indian Evidence Act,…

View On WordPress

#Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita #Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita #Bharatiya Sakshya Sanhita #Code of Criminal Procedure #Constitutional Amendments #Criminal Law #Indian Evidence Act #Indian Penal Code #Justice Reform #Legislative Process #Parliament #Sedition #Terrorism

0 notes

filosofablogger · 10 months

Text

It's Broken ... Let's Fix It!

Generally, we don’t think about things breaking … until they do. But once they do break and we have to deal with either repairs or replacement of that broken ‘thing’, then going forward we are more aware of what could happen and take steps to prevent a similar breakage in the future. For example … new drivers may not know the importance of regular oil changes, and dirty oil can cause some…

View On WordPress

#14th Amendment #19th amendment #Constitutional amendments #qualifications for president #U.S. Constitution

0 notes

worldwatcher3072 · 10 months

Text

Constitution Matters:

Part Eight - The Eighth Amendment and Its Significance

Welcome back to our ongoing series, "Constitution Matters," where we delve into the fundamental principles and amendments that shape the foundation of our democratic society. In this eighth installment, we explore the importance of the Eighth Amendment and how it safeguards the rights of every individual.

The Eighth Amendment: A Shield Against Cruel and Unusual Punishment

The Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution reads: "Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted." This concise yet powerful statement embodies the commitment of our nation to justice, fairness, and the protection of human dignity.

1. Protection Against Cruel and Unusual Punishment

The Eighth Amendment stands as a bulwark against the use of cruel and unusual punishment in the criminal justice system. It reflects the Founding Fathers' awareness of the potential for governmental abuse and their desire to prevent such abuse from occurring. This amendment ensures that punishments meted out by the legal system remain proportionate to the crime committed and do not cross the boundary into degrading or inhumane treatment.

2. Human Dignity and Moral Progress

By prohibiting cruel and unusual punishment, the Eighth Amendment recognizes the inherent worth and dignity of every individual, regardless of their actions. It reflects the belief that even in the face of wrongdoing, our society should strive to uphold a higher moral standard. This commitment to human dignity reinforces the idea that our justice system should aim to rehabilitate offenders, rather than subject them to dehumanizing treatment.

3. Evolving Interpretations and Contemporary Relevance

Over the years, the Eighth Amendment's interpretation has evolved to reflect changing societal norms and a deeper understanding of human rights. Courts have consistently grappled with questions about the constitutionality of various punishments, particularly in cases involving the death penalty, life imprisonment without parole for juveniles, and harsh sentences for nonviolent offenses. These debates illustrate the enduring relevance of the Eighth Amendment in guiding our legal system toward fairness and compassion.

4. A Protector of Vulnerable Populations

The Eighth Amendment serves as a safeguard for vulnerable populations, ensuring that they are not disproportionately subjected to harsh punishment. This includes individuals with mental illnesses, juveniles, and those facing economic hardship. The amendment underscores the principle that justice must be blind and unbiased, and that punitive measures should not discriminate based on an individual's background or circumstances.

The Eighth Amendment is a cornerstone of our Constitution, embodying our commitment to justice, human dignity, and the rule of law. Its prohibition of cruel and unusual punishment reflects the timeless values upon which our nation was founded, while also adapting to the changing needs and understanding of our society. As we continue to navigate the complexities of our criminal justice system, the Eighth Amendment remains an essential guidepost, reminding us that the pursuit of justice must always be tempered by compassion and respect for every individual's inherent worth.

Join us next time for Part Nine of "Constitution Matters," where we will explore the Ninth Amendment and its significance in protecting unenumerated rights.

Regenerate

#Constitution Matters #Eighth Amendment #Cruel and Unusual Punishment #Human Dignity #Justice System #Constitutional Rights #Legal Principles #Founding Fathers #Moral Progress #Vulnerable Populations #Fairness in Justice #Evolution of Interpretation #Rule of Law #Protection of Individuals #Criminal Justice Reform #Constitutional Amendments #Civil Liberties #Balanced Punishment #Contemporary Relevance

0 notes

thevitalportal · 10 months

Text

Clearly a constitutional amendment can address that oversight of the founding fathers.

#constitutional amendments #conflicts of interest #bribery #collusion #abuse of authority #abuse of power #abuse of office #vital community #vitalportal #additional information #vital information exchange #thevitalportal #vital media #blacklivesmatter #blacktwitter #vital politics

1 note · View note

thenewdemocratus · 11 months

Text

Salon Magazine: Michael Burstein: 'We Need a New Constitution'

Source:The New Democrat Michael Burstein’s amendments, or even new United States Constitution was not as radical or social democratic as I was expecting. I perhaps was expecting to see proposals that would move America away from its federalist tradition and system and try to move to more of a unitarian form of government. Where the states aren’t nearly as powerful with as much responsibility,…

View On WordPress

#2014 #Amending the Constitution #America #Congressional Term Limits #Constitutional Amendments #Far Left #Gerrymandering #Michael Burstein #New Left #Public Financing #Socialism #Socialists #U.S. Congress #U.S. Government #U.S. House of Representatives #U.S. Senate #U.S. Supreme Court #United States #United States Constitution

0 notes

kp777 · 11 months

Text

By Dharna Noor

The Guardian

July 3, 2023

As Montana awaits a judgment in a historic climate lawsuit, there’s a drive to place environmental provisions in state constitutions

A constitutional legal strategy is gaining traction as a way to potentially help bring about climate justice, boosted by a recent high-profile trial in which 16 young plaintiffs spoke movingly about how the climate crisis has affected their lives.

That case, the first US constitutional climate trial, came to an end in Helena, Montana, earlier this month, with a verdict expected to be delivered by a judge in the coming weeks.

Climate and legal advocates say the Montana case – which made national and international headlines – could inspire more legal action, while also pushing forward similar lawsuits pending against four other states and the federal government.

Some climate advocates are, meanwhile, working to enshrine similarly robust environmental rights in other state constitutions, which they say could become the basis of future climate litigation.

The Montana case was filed in March 2020 by 16 youths who allege the state’s government’s climate-damaging energy policies violate the state’s constitution, including provisions guaranteeing that the “state and each person shall maintain and improve a clean and healthful environment in Montana for present and future generations”.

Montana didn’t always guarantee such strong environmental protections. Its first constitution, adopted in 1889, was heavily influenced by mining executives and designed to protect their interests.

“We were very much controlled by a select few corporations, primarily during that time by the hardrock mining industry,” said Derf Johnson, deputy director of the Montana Environmental Information Center advocacy group.

Under its first constitution, Montana was so strongly controlled by extractive industry that historians called the state a “corporate colony”. But in the 1950s and 1960s, Johnson said, the legislature began to recognize the problem.

In 1972, amid rising public concern about the environment, the state convened 100 delegates at a constitutional convention to write a new document. The delegates saw the high levels of pollution the extractive industry had caused, said the retired Montana supreme court justice Jim Nelson, so among their top priorities was shedding this oligarchic control.

“Delegates considered the environment to be very important, and they wanted to preserve that for future generations,” he said.

Green amendments

Montana is one of just three states whose constitutions include what environmental attorney Maya van Rossum calls “green amendments”.

The first state to enshrine a green amendment was Pennsylvania, which did so one year before Montana did in 1971.

In 2021, New York became the third and most recent state to codify such protections when residents overwhelmingly approved a ballot measure amending the state constitution to include the right to “clean air and water, and a healthful environment”.

Other states, including Hawaii, Illinois, Massachusetts and Rhode Island, have environmental protections in their constitutions that are not in their respective bills of rights. Still other states provide constitutional protections that relate to the environment, including Alaska, where the public has a right to “navigable and public waters”.

But in order to qualify as truly “green”, said Van Rossum, amendments must meet specific criteria; for instance, they must be placed in the bill of rights section of a state’s constitution to ensure they provide the highest level of protection, and they must be “self-executing”, meaning a legislature does not have to pass laws for the amendments to function.

Other constitutional rights

While Van Rossum and climate advocates push to enshrine new constitutional rights, lawyers are also working to use existing ones to deliver climate action. Our Children’s Trust, the non-profit law firm behind the Montana lawsuit, also has youth-led constitutional climate lawsuits pending against the federal government, as well as four other states: Hawaii, Florida, Utah and Virginia.

“Each of those cases focuses on different attributes of the government’s conduct, but are similar in that those in power continue to take actions that perpetuate dependence on fossil fuels,” said Andrea Rodgers, senior litigation attorney at Our Children’s Trust.

Both the federal suit and the Hawaii suit are expected to go to trial sometime in 2024. Oral arguments – which allow attorneys to clarify and emphasize legal cases – will be held in the Virginia and Utah cases before the end of 2023, Rodgers said.

The firm has not based these lawsuits solely on constitutional environmental protections. In fact, its best-known constitutional climate lawsuit, the federal case Juliana v US, was filed despite the fact that the US constitution does not include any rights to a clean and healthful environment.

Instead, Juliana v US asserts that by enacting pro-fossil fuel policies and exacerbating climate change, the government violated the plaintiffs’ constitutional rights to life, liberty and property; the principle of “equal protection” under the law; and the public trust doctrine – a legal theory which asserts that governments have a responsibility to preserve certain natural resources for public use and enjoyment. (The public trust doctrine has long formed a basis for youth climate litigation, even playing a role in the first instance of young people suing a federal agency over greenhouse gas emissions, 2011’s Alec L v Jackson.)