[phpisthebest]

Clearly not the abstract "harms" asserted in the case, where by one plaintiff has a medical aliment that was acerbated by COVID and because of that MT did not due enough for climate change.

Also the case was largely about individual "extreme weather" events that have no clear, direct link to MT pollution, and there is zero evidence to suggest that should MT suspend all their pollution today, right now, it would change anything for these young people.

The clear intention of the law was to preserve the land from direct, articulable harm such as chemical dumping, clear cut mining, deforestation, etc etc etc

[pseudalopex]

The defendant declared Montana air unhealthy or very unhealthy every year since 2020 or before. And people with medical ailments are part of current and future generations.

Was the clear intention of the law to allow dumping DDT into a river contaminated outside Montana?

An author of the constitutional article was a witness. The judge cited the constitutional convention transcripts also. Did you read them?

[Volundr]

> Clearly not the abstract "harms" asserted in the case

...

> The clear intention of the law was to preserve the land from direct, articulable harm such as chemical dumping, clear cut mining, deforestation, etc etc etc

I've read the Montana constitution and read up on the case. The points above are not clear to me. Is there something else your looking at that makes it clear to you?

[gaganyaan]

Where does it specify what you claim?

[the-printer]

> The legislature shall provide adequate remedies for the protection of the environmental life support system from degradation and provide adequate remedies to prevent unreasonable depletion and degradation of natural resources.

https://leg.mt.gov/bills/mca/Constitution/IX/1.htm#

[pseudalopex]

Where does that sentence specify the legislature shall ignore indirect or shared harms?