Colonists III, and in order to ratify independence the

Colonists set shore for the promised land in hopes of creating a new society that could “delineate the boundaries between freedom and authority”(Kittrie, pg 3). Many of the colonists were fugitives from English law, but upon arrival still abided by the King’s laws until around 1740 when the colonists began to have a growing discord with its mother country. It didn’t take the colonists very long to realize that separate colonies left them very vulnerable to the wrath of  King George III, and in order to ratify independence the colonies would need to unify as one federal body; thus the United States of America was born. 51 delegates “hailing from all the original states except Rhode Island gathered in the Pennsylvania State House in 1787 to participate in the Constitutional Convention”(National Constitution Center).Distaste of the confederacy among colonists, and the desire for the reform of unified national government. Revolution, war, religion, and discrimination were the most significant topics on the mind of the founders when they drafted the constitution. Mostly the founders were modeling the United States into everything they disliked about the British government, which actually created an equal system of power balancing power, each preventing the other from having sole legislative reign.When it comes down to it, there are two major roadblocks that prevent progressive environmental protection in the United States. The inability to put a dollar value on natural resources and the lack of environmental provisions in the United States Constitution, the supreme law of this country.The environment is an extremely difficult resource to protect, as the value of nature is absolutely impossible to monetize accurately, and money is what runs America. Regardless, the environment needs to be protected, and our traditional legal system is inadequate in responding to these issues with the necessary urgency.Obviously, the founders of the Constitution did not anticipate the expansion of technology and industry, and therefore did not incorporate environmental protections in their keystone legislation. At the time the industrial revolution was only just beginning and the cities that were built were miniscule compared to today. Measurable and drastic climate change within the US raises the question of whether the United States Constitution has become too outdated and will be adequate in protecting the environment from further environmental devastation.This essay aims to explore the effectiveness of the United States Constitution against further significant environmental degradation. Although most laws are created through judicial review, the Supreme Court has the final ruling on all cases and bases its jurisdiction on the text of the Constitution. The entire legislation may have been created by a group of privileged white men who lived in a very different world than we do today, but at its best it worked so well that the country forgot how important it was. The constitution is still capable of sustaining a democracy, but the real threat is the government entwined with corrupt lobbying and corporate consolidation. Rewriting the Constitution will not fix corruption or money in politics, and the more specific and dense the legislation the harder it is to govern. So this puts the country in a major pickle, either it needs to start from scratch, or create some magic policy that regulates lobbying in favor of the environment. The issue with favoritism in any way for or against the environment goes against everything a democracy demands to not only sustain, but to thrive. The magic of the Constitution has always been its ability to prevent favoritism, and allow a laissez faire, pure free market system where only the strong survive. The growing concern is the strength of the environment in this Darwinistic system. Can the environment withstand capitalism, and the free will of humans? The issue within environmental law and politics isn’t about protecting our national parks, or the reefs or forests anymore; the issue at this point is the very safety and long-term viability of human life. So what does the constitution protect in regards to human life, liberty and property? The Preamble of the Constitution”We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America”.”Establish justice”Democracy depends on the fairness of the justice system which would mean it provides equal opportunity in protecting our individual human rights. Do our human rights no longer consist of the right to life, liberty, and property like the founders mentioned in the Declaration of Independence? If there was any room for interpretation of founding intention, the Declaration would be the most primary source in support of what the founders were trying to mean, and the Declaration clearly states that there is no justice without the access to our inalienable rights. The right to our property, our planet, is nothing less than unalienable.”insure domestic Tranquility”National security is severely affected by climate migration, resource scarcity, and inhospitable levels of toxic pollutants in all organic matter. “Domestic tranquility” literally means peace at home and there is blatant discord in America which grows with every out of hand street protest ending in lives lost. So, clearly there is a misalignment between this constitutional provision and the current reality. The framers of the Constitution were concerned with domestic tranquility because of the disoray of social order at the time, yet the country is probably just as divided now as it was then. “Promote the general welfare”This part of the constitution has been long used by congress to justify inumerous tax expenditures, and disagreements over exactly what the founders intended with this clause are likely to continue. This is where the major issues in constitutional interpretation arises. What is not disagreed upon is the intention of improving welfare for the American people. Environmental degradation and extreme climate disasters will inhibit the general welfare and thus must also be protected under this clause.”Secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity”What is Liberty? Analogous to freedom, it should entail our human rights to free will, free speech, and freedom to govern ourselves. “Does anyone else notice that in the vast centralized government’s attempts to promote the general welfare they have limited all our liberty?”(Secure the Blessing of Liberty to Ourselves and Our Posterity, CNN). As the blogger Doug Weir notes, “you don’t need to be a lawyer to understand that if you have a human right to life, and a right to the highest attainable level of health, then the environmental factors that influence both life and health must be addressed – be they access to clean drinking water, to air free from pollution or to untainted food”(A Healthy Environment is A Human Right, New Internationalist, March 3, 2016). The solution to many seems as simple as just ratifying a new Constitution of the United States that ensures the protection if our natural resources. Creating and ratifying an entirely new Constitution in an already corrupt system would easily be susceptible to manipulation in favor of special interests. The existing Constitution and its amendments were created to protect any one part of the system from overpowering the other, to be unbiased to the winner or the loser, all players have the opportunity to win. The issue with people and politics is their sheer dislike in confronting ideas that don’t align with their present ideology. What people must remember is that politics are about the people, and every person has a unique experience experience. Diverse populations yield an optimum democracy success rate but also lead to maximum disagreement. The Constitution offers a framework that can protect the environment with the addition of proper federal and state legislation, but “the text of any founding document is likely to be far less important in maintaining a republic, than the actions and commitments of the nation’s citizenry over time”(#Republic, Princeton University Press).It’s easier to be hopeless than to have faith in the ability of the constitution to eventually balance out corruption. If proposed legislation and potential supreme court cases challenge the text of the Constitution the results could be large, institution wide, and environmentally conscious changes. The Constitution will never be completely adequate in protecting the environment, that is not the function of the document. There must be activism on all levels in order to adequately protect the environment, conscious decisions made daily that don’t have to be regulated by the government. If we rely on the government to regulate everything we no longer have a democracy, we have a dictatorship. Citations:Burns, Kyle. “Constitutions & the Environment: Comparative Approaches to Environmental Protection and the Struggle to Translate Rights into Enforcement.” Georgetown Environmental Law Review. November 12, 2016. Accessed November 29, 2017. Kittrie, Nicholas N., and Eldon D. Wedlock, Jr. The tree of liberty: a documentary history of rebellion and political crime in America. Revised Edition ed. Vol. 1. 3 vols. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Univ. Press, 1998.Peone. “Secure the Blessing of Liberty to Ourselves and Our Posterity.” CNN. May 9, 2011. Accessed December 04, 2017. http://ireport.cnn.com/docs/DOC-604859.Sunstein, C. R. (2017). Republic: divided democracy in the age of social media. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Weir, Doug. “BLOG: A HEALTHY ENVIRONMENT MUST BE A HUMAN RIGHT – ESPECIALLY IN ARMED CONFLICT.” TRWN, New Internationalist, 3 Mar. 2016, Accessed December 13, 2017.