Spyke

Syndicated from the fediverse. Read and engage on the original instance.

View original on lemmy.world

3 replies

henfredemars
infosec.pub

The judge’s ruling for Titusville seems reasonable given the state law but it’s a real shame.

“We recognize the overwhelming support of this charter amendment by the residents of the City of Titusville and the admirable policies of the amendment,” the judges wrote. “However, the Legislature in drafting section 403.412(9)(a) of the Environmental Protection Act has not authorized the types of rights provided for in the charter amendment. As such, an appellate court has no power to change or alter what the Legislature mandated.”

17
CosmicTurtle0 [he/him]reply
lemmy.dbzer0.com

Law in question:

(9)(a) A local government regulation, ordinance, code, rule, comprehensive plan, charter, or any other provision of law may not recognize or grant any legal rights to a plant, an animal, a body of water, or any other part of the natural environment that is not a person or political subdivision as defined in s. 1.01(8) or grant such person or political subdivision any specific rights relating to the natural environment not otherwise authorized in general law or specifically granted in the State Constitution

This is "small government" folks.

10
Red_Octoberreply
lemmy.world

This is exactly what they mean by Small Government. It's "Small" when being bigger would mean regulations that are inconvenient to corporations, but they'll conveniently forget that when it comes to stripping people's individual rights.

Small government: "The government isn't allowed to stop the pollution of all your drinking water."

Also Small Government: "It's illegal for an individual to own more than 6 sex toys in the state of Texas."

13

You reached the end