One of the things that is I think maybe more controversial than the average Joe American would think or would understand, is the concept of rights. What is a right now, in a certain sense, what a right is is a legal guarantee to something, some kind of legal protection enacted in law guaranteeing something.
All right, I have a right to freedom of speech. It's basically a legal guarantee or a legal protection that the government cannot engage in adverse actions against me based on the content of stuff that I talk about within the sort of historical parameters of the kinds of things the First Amendment and the term of art freedom of speech is designed to protect, which chiefly concerns questions of political and social and cultural relevance. A lot of the stuff I talk about on
this show. Right, So if now, there's certain things that are within that ambit, certain things that are not me using potty language on the radio, for example, is not within the ambit of the First Amendment, And I don't have the same protection for saying it. If I come on here and curse a bunch, the FCC will find power talk. That's but that's censorship, Yeah, well, it's censorship around obscenity which is not necessarily protected
by the First Amendment. To the same extent that you know, me giving my opinion on Joe Biden's policies is right. But it's a legal guarantee. It's a kind of legal guarantee that I can't be prosecuted for the content of what I'm trying to say about these topics. And if I am prosecuted or subject to other kinds of government action adverse action, I can vindicate my rights in court. Okay, So it's a kind of leg A right is a kind of legal protection, a kind of legal guarantee that you can do certain
kinds of things without adverse consequences. It means I can own a gun without the state confiscating it from me, or penalizing me, or taxing me, or burdening me. Well a certain extent, maybe you can tax in certain ways without taking too much adverse action against me. You can't quarter a British soldier in my house. The good old Third Amendment. You can't unreasonably The Fourth Amendment provides a right against unreasonable searches and seizure. Police officers can't come
in my house without a warrant. And if they try to do that, then I have legal protections I can pursue. So a right, in its most basic sense, is something that exists within the context of American law. It's a guarantee within American law, and it's rooted either in the US Constitution
or the California Constitution, within federal statutory law or California statutory law. It's a kind of guarantee, a legal guarantee against adverse action by the government against me for doing X, Y or Z conduct or adverse action by private individuals. You have a sort of right to You have a right to go to businesses, to engage in businesses, engage with businesses as a customer. That right cannot be fringed, infringed rather on the basis of you being an African
American. Okay, this was the whole revolution of the Civil Rights Acts that basically you had private businesses shutting African Americans out of, you know, whole sectors of cities and whole industries in various ways, huge restrictions on basic living on the part of African Americans. You can't go to all these different grocery stores, you can't go to these kinds of hotels. You can't go to
these kinds of restaurants. These are kind of basic essential services that allow people to live and function and move around in society and Africa, Americans were sort of shut out from a lot of them, a lot of these services and a lot of parts of towns throughout the United States on the basis of nothing else other than their skin color. And so the Civil Rights Acts forbade that. So, no, you have a right to go to a you know, to go to a grocery store and not be shut out from that service
purely on the basis of your skin color. Now you can be shut out of a business on the basis of other things. No shoes, no shirt, no service is a perfectly legal form of discrimination. You don't have the right to go to a business with no shoes and no shirt and just expect service. So a right is again it's a kind of guarantee from the government that you can do something. But people use the word right to mean other
kinds of things that I think are a little bit more loosey goosey. I think we start to use and I think we get into problems when we sort of mix these two uses of these terms. Everyone has the right to an education. Okay, well what does that mean? What exactly do you see how it's kind of different there. I have a right against an unreasonable search. That's a fairly concrete thing. You need a search warrant before you come into my house. Okay, that's a very concrete thing. It's something that's
within the legal process. It's within the realm of legal processes. I can appeal if a cop comes into my house and searches for things. You know that there are certain circumstances in which a police officer, if he's got a preponderance of the evidence indicating that someone went into a house, you know, they see someone stab a guy and then run into a house, they don't need a search warrant first before they go into the house and catch the guy
who's got the bloody knife. So there's an appeal process for that. But it's a fairly concrete thing. I have a right to an education. Well, that's a much more nebulous thing, right, What does that mean? I have a right to an education if you purely just mean I can't be hindered by the government from going to a school. Okay, But is when
you say people have a right to a good education. That's almost like a positive You're guaranteeing some sort of positive thing, Especially when you use this language of rights, which we in America believe to be like a very ironclad thing. It's hard to say for a state, everyone has a right to a good education. Okay, Well, if you go through Fresno Unified, for example, my constant education punching bag, and you can't read or write by the end of it, or you can't read it right very well, were
your rights infringed? Well, do you think you have the ability to sue as a result? No, So what does that even mean? I think Americans love the language of rights, but use the term in all kinds of ways that are sort of loosey goosey, And that seems specifically to be what's happening with a proposed ballot initiative. That's going to sound really nice, but the practical implications of what it's going to mean, I think could be way
more far reaching. And it's the kind of thing that makes me hate California's pure democracy systems, like the ballot initiative process. Should from the Sacramento Bee, Should clean air and water be a fundamental human right California voters to decide. In the Golden State, we pride ore This is a piece, an opinion piece in the Fresno in the Sacramento be written by Terry Tamminin and James
Struck, who are former secretaries of the California Environmental Protection Agency. In the Golden State, we pride ourselves on our future facing environmental values and our climate leadership. We I mean you guys, the authors of this piece who ran the California APA. Maybe, but I don't know that well. Most Californians
think that way anyway. At the same time, nearly one million residents of California, primarily in disadvantaged community, are without access to clean drinking water, and California cities such as Los Angeles, Long Beach and Fresno are burdened year after year by some of the dirtiest, most polluted air in the nation. The glaring duality underscores the failure of our current legal framework to ensure the fundamental rights of all Californians to clean air, water, and a healthy environment.
It's time for a change. It's time for California to enshrine this right into our state constitution. So will. I mean, this is and this is the thing where we're going to say that anything we like that is good, we're going to enshrine as a legal right within the state constitution. Does that actually make sense? What does it mean to have a right to clean air?
I mean, yes, I think maybe a healthier way of understanding this is that as human persons, we are owed certain kinds of goods on account of our basic human dignity, which means that certain kinds of goods should be respected in our regard. Every child conceived into the world should have a mom and dad who loves them. Every child should get an education of some sort. I think thinking about it in terms of these are things that people are
owed on account of being members of the human family. I think that's a more sensible way of talking about it than a right. Well, we have a constitutional right to you know, have two parents. Well okay, well what if my mom's a druggie and my dad's a druggy and they place me for adoption, or my dad is a druggie and leaves or abandons the family and I only have my mom. Has my fundamental right been violated in such a way that I can sue somebody that I can vindicate my rights in the
courts. Well, then we're talking about rights in two different senses. If that's not the case. And I feel like what this is trying to do is take something that, yes, it's a something that human beings are owed, that human beings should have, which is the ability to grow up in a clean environment. Yes, people should have that, but I think it's a little bizarre to enshrine it within the state constitution. I think what this
is going to be. This is going to be framed as this is guaranteeing a right to a clean environment for individuals, and really what it's going to be is some kind of carbon emissions mandated limit on the state, on businesses, on political on municipalities. Basically, this is going to become some kind of carbon emissions tax or some kind of carbon emissions cap, or some kind
of environmental massive statewide environmental regulation. Because unless you're going to make it, if it's not that, then it makes no sense to put it in the state constitution. Okay, we don't vindicate like certain kinds of Again, children have a right to to loving parents in the sense that that is something that every human being should have. That is something every being human being is owed, But we don't have a process for legally vindicating that right, that obligation
to people all the time. Again, if your dad walks out on you and abandons his family, in many cases, you can't force that person to come back into the home to take care of you the way it should be you. Certainly you can't necessarily use the courts to accomplish that goal. People are owed two parents, people should have two parents, but you can't necessarily use the courts to vindicate that. People are owed a clean environment. But how do you bend the courts to mandate that? How do you put that
in the state constitution? And what does that actually mean effectively once it's in the state constitution. Well, I think what it's just going to mean is a massive carbon limit, some kind of massive emissions limit on businesses. We're going to dig into what this could mean in the next segment. This is the John Girardi Show here on Power Talk. There's a proposed California state constitutional
amendment. It's working its way through the state legislature to guarantee for Californians, quote, a right to a clean environment, to a healthy environment, rather to clean air and water and a healthy environment. And you might think that sounds really broad, that sounds really general, that sounds really vague. Yes, it is broad, it is general, and it is vague. I've
got the actual text of this. So the way that constitutional amendments work in California, there's a couple of different ways you can amend the California state Constitution. And for those who need a refresher course, for our federal government, the United States government, we have the Constitution of the United States, and this is our foundational law. Any simple laws that are passed by Congress, majority in the House, majority in the Senate, and the President signs it,
those laws have to be consistent with the US Constitution. So the US Constitution is fundamental. It trumps any normal laws passed by Congress. Okay, when the thirteenth Amendment was ratified, which abolished slavery in the United States, well, any prior American law, any prior American laws that operated on the assumption that slavery was okay and regulated slavery like this, and that all those prior laws got wiped out. Why Well, because the thirteenth Amendment came into
effect. If the Constitution says not X. Everything that's said X beforehand is wiped out. The constitution takes precedence over normal laws. The same is true in California. We have the California State Constitution. California has a constitution just like the federal government does in California. Then on top of that has normal laws passed by the state legislature of California. A majority of the Assembly votes for something, a majority of the state Senate votes for something, and the
governor signs it into law. So our normal laws passing California have to be consistent with the California State Constitution. Now amending the California State Constitution, there are a couple of different ways to do it, so adding new things into
the state Constitution. The method that this proposal is going through is it's getting two thirds majority votes in the Assembly in the state Senate before being put on and that automatically would qualify it for the ballot to be a ballot initiative voted on by the voters of California. So this is an amendment to the California Constitution, a proposed amendment to the California Constitution to say that the people should
This is the text that's going to be at it. The people shall have a right to clean air and water and a healthy environment, considering the general well being and other needs of the people. The principles inherent in the rights recognized in this subdivision A shall serve as a guide to all branches of government
in the performance of their official duties. All branches of California government. The rights recognized in some division A clean air, water, and a healthy environment shall inure to all people in equal measure, and shall not be construed or applied in a manner that is inconsistent with duly enacted laws of the State or
other rights set forth in this Constitution. Now, they Chamber of Commerce, and I'm not like an unqualified fanboy for the cal Chamber points out that this is a hugely broadly vaguely worded thing, and god knows how it's going to be interpreted. And this is the problem with putting this, this American obsession with calling everything a constitutional right, using the language of rights in all these different ways. Yes, like people are owed, people should have clean air,
clean water, and good environment. But there's a difference between that and something that's very concrete and actionable sort of negative protection like no unreasonable search and seizure. You need a warrant before you search my house. So the Colchamber of Commerce wrote enshrining into the state's constitution a general right to clean air and clean water is unnecessary, and then go through all the different California environmental regulations
that are already on the books. It is therefore unclear what new substantive protections, if any, this new constitutional right provides Californians that is not already being afforded under existing local, state, and federal environmental laws and regulations. What is clear, however, are unintended negative consequences resulting from the placement of such
rights in the state's constitution. More than a mere redundancy, it lays the legal foundation to challenge virtually any state or local government infrastructure, energy procurement proposal, or housing project on the basis that any one of them threatens they're new and as yet undefined general right. And that's true. I mean it talks
about all branches of California government. And guess what. Municipal governments, city governments, county governments, those are all just extent school districts, those are all just extensions of state government, right local governments, municipal governments, county governments and all that. Those only exist as creations and extensions of California government. They don't have the same kind of independence from California state government that say,
you know, a state government has from the federal government. For example, layering a constitutional amendment on top of the extensive matrix of existing laws undermines their applicability and effectiveness in favor of an unworkable framework in which no growth would become the only option. And that might be right. I mean, what are we defining as clean air, clean water, and a healthy environment. It doesn't say do we just go by existing California statutes. I don't know.
Seems seems like a kakamimi idea to me. Now, when we return, I want to talk about how this is going to work and other problems between the state constitution and statutes, how this actually relates to something we dealt with and fighting against Proposition one, which is the big abortion amendment that's next on the John Girardi Show. There's this proposed ballot initiative in California to guarantee as a California state constitutional right, a constitutional right to clean air, clean
water, and a quote healthy environment. That's all it says. It doesn't define anything any more precisely than that, and so people are asking, well, well, this seems like a bad idea to put this in the state constitution when we have no actual definition for it. Now, the opinion piece
in the Sacramento be about this possible ballot initiative that we'll be facing. And so just so you guys are aware of the process, the state legislature is voting to have this be a proposed ballot initiative that the voters of California would vote for, I think this November, and if the voters approve it, it would become enshrined in the California State Constitution. Now, so that's the process this would go under. But again, what does this bill, what
does this proposed amendment to the California Constitution say? This is literally all it says. The people shall have a right to clean air and water and a healthy environment, considering the general well being and other needs of the people. These principles shall serve as a guide to all branches of government in the performance of their official duties. That is more or less all it says. Clean air and water, healthy environment. Do we have a definition of that?
Do we have a definition based on emissions and particulate you know, counts or whatever, what constitutes clean air or clean water? Do we have any definitions about how this interfaces with existing California state laws regulating emissions, cap and trade, all you know, environmental impact reports, and any assessment of how that relates to the existing layer upon layer upon layer of California law that already regulates the environment. No, nothing, nothing, It's just there. Is it
guaranteed something more than existing California statutes? Doesn't? I don't know. Does it? Does it mandate? Does it mandate something equal to existing California statutes?
Do we do? We We're not changing at all. So to try to read these tea leaves, all I've got so far is this op ed in the Sacramento Be in favor of this constitutional amendment which I've been talking about throughout the show again, written by Terry Tammanan and James Strock, who are former heads of the California Environmental Protection Agency, the California state version of the
EPA. Now they write that here's what they write, opposition to the proposed amendment has begun to line up. This is the two former heads of the California EPA writing this. The California Chamber of Commerce has placed it on its job killer list, arguing that existing environmental regulations are efficient to protect California's kind
of misstates what the California and Chamber of Commerce was saying. What they were saying is we already have a ton of environmental regulation and it's not clear what this does on top of everything that's already on the books. This is entirely vague, and it just leaves every any kind of development or growth subject to questioning as to whether it infringes on this right to clean air, clean water, and healthy environment. That's actually what the California Chamber of Commerce said,
but let's gloss past that. Here's what these two former heads of the California EPAS say. The reality is that these regulations California's existing exhaustive regime of environmental law, all of California environmental law, the extensive ambitious programs of and eliminating all non electric vehicles by twenty thirty five, Cap and Trade sequa, which allows random yahoos to sue for any building development for almost any building development.
All these layer upon layer upon layer of California environmental law, these regulations, right, these two former heads of the California EPA are often inadequate, under enforced, and subject to political maneuvering. By enshrining environmental rights in our state constitution, we create a firm foundation upon which future environmental policies and regulations can
be built. So what does that mean? Again? This question is if we're going to put a right to clean air, clean water, and how health the environment, put that in our state constitution, what does that do to the law on the ground day in and day out in California. Does that mean that existing California laws are actually not enough that we have a new standard we have to live up to. Well, they're sort of talking out of both sides of their mouth, these former heads of the California EPA.
On the one hand, they're saying, our California existing environmental laws are often inadequate, often under enforced, often subject to political maneuvering. So by putting environmental rights in our state constitution, we create a firm found day So let me pause before I get to the next point. If our existing California law
is inadequate. You're proposing this as something to enhance it. Right, If you're arguing we need to do this because existing California environmental law is inadequate, then you're saying this very generally worded thing that we're going to put in the California State Constitution is enforcing some new and higher standards. But they then say, by enshrining environmental rights in our state constitution, we create a firm foundation
upon which future environmental policies and regulations can be built. So what's going to guide us is future environmental policies and regulations. That's the more specific thing. And how does it give us a more firm foundation? All right? The state of California can regulate the environment as it pleases. It can already do
that. There's nothing about putting this in the state constitution that strengthens or weakens the ability of the State of California to pass environmental laws and relevantly empowered executive agencies to issue environmental regulations. They can still do that, Okay. State governments have the ability to regulate the environment. That's not in question. Passing
this constitutional amendment doesn't change that. So it's like they're kind of talking out of both but they're sort of talking out of both sides of their mouth. It creates a firm foundation upon which future environmental policies and regulations can be built.
So proponents of this are going to have to try to get around the obvious question of you're putting this really broadly worded thing into the state constitution and it's going to cause massive uncertainty every time a municipality wants to approve of a big building project. Is the state going to be able to swoop in and stop it on the grounds that it violates people's rights to a clean environment, to a healthy environment. And probably, I would imagine proponents of this will
no, it's not changing anything on the ground level. It's just providing principles say no, no, no, no, no, no, no no for future future action. Now that doesn't make sense, and frankly, it reminds me of some of the debates we had over Proposition one, which was passed in twenty twenty two. This was the big abortion amendment, which said that abortion is now the right to an abortion is a fundamental right in California law. And so here's the problem. I'll connect this, I promise I
won't just make this an abortion segment. Proposition one put a very broadly worded right to abortion into the California state Constitution. It just says the state cannot interfere with a woman's right to an abortion. No qualification, no qualification about the kind of abortion, the nature of abortion. Nothing. State cannot interfere
with a women's right to an abortion. To sorry a person's right, because California thinks that women are not the only people who can have abortions, all right, But the problem is, existing California statutory law governing abortion says that abortions after viability are only legal if the doctor deems them to be a threat to the mother's health. So that's in the California statute that was passed by a majority of the Assembly, majority of the state Senate, signed by a
governor. That's on the books as a normal California law. So people then ask, well, if you're putting a broader right to abortion into the state constitution, does that mean that we now have legal abortion completely free and clear in the third trimester? That that old restriction on post viability abortions and viability is around twenty two, twenty three, twenty four weeks. It's the point in pregnancy where a child can survive delivery kind of varies kid to kid.
If you're putting into the state constitution, which is supreme, which is our foundational law in the state of California, which which trumps any prior existing normal laws passed as a statute by the Assembly, the Senate, and the governor. If you're putting into the California State Constitution a broader protection, then are
you legalizing third trimester abortion? Now, the politicians who pushed that know that third trimester abortion is not popular even in California, and so they say no, no, no, no, no no, no existing law holds.
Well, that makes no sense. If your statutory right is narrower, but your constitutional guarantee is broader, then the constitutional guarante Trump's So, I think, what with this environmental constitutional amendment, this proposed constitutional amendment for our California State Constitution to guarantee in very broad terms that everyone has a right to clean air, clean up water, and a healthy environment end quote. That's an
enormously broad right. It's much broader than any of the specific environmental laws and regulations that are on the books that were passed by the state legislature or authorized by state regulators. So what's going to control. The constitutional amendment controls the California state constitution. If it's guaranteeing something bigger then the specific guarantees of California statutes, then that's going to control. And I agree with the California Chamber
of Commerce on this. If we pass this some big, huge broad right to clean air, clean water, and a healthy environment. I want people to have clean air. I want people to have clean water. I want people to have a healthy environment. But guess what, those terms are subject to very different interpretations by different people. And I think it's going to lead to any development in this state, which, by the way, we desperately
need. We desperately need more housing. I don't know how we can talk out of one side of our mouth about the desperate need for more housing. But at the same time past this wildly over broad measure guaranteeing clean air, clean water, healthy environment, where now any proposed housing could be subject to Oh what it threatens my right to the construction and emissions that it's going to
cause. It's going to threaten the right of people in this community to a quote healthy environment under some vaguely, broadly determined criteria that as yet we don't have. Don't vote for broad vague general constitutional amendments. It's a bad idea, and I almost guarantee this stupid thing's going to pass, because who wants
to vote against clean air, clean water, and a healthy environment. When we return the Hunter Biden conviction and just the general thought about whether justice is really served here next on the John Girardi Show, Hunter Biden got convicted of his gun crimes, and there's this attitude among Democrats of like, see how much better Joe Biden is than Donald Trump. Here? Donald Trump is calling the judicial process rigged, and Joe Biden did nothing to interfere with it.
Joe Biden was clean and pure as a wind driven Snow's see, there's no special treatment for the Biden's. He's not pardoning his son, all right. And there's sort of this attitude that Hunter Biden received fair justice, or even unfairly over zealous justice against himself. Let's be real here, that is not true. The federal prosecutor in this case tried with might and main to wipe
all of Hunter Biden's crimes away. They were pursuing a plea deal to the bitter end that would have reduced all of Hunter's millions and millions and millions and millions of dollars of unpaid taxes, his gun crimes, everything down to a couple of misdemeanors for which he wouldn't do any jail time. And it was such a ridiculous deal that the judge, the federal judge in this case,
shut it down. When that collapsed and the prosecutor was revealed for being as wildly duplicitous as he was, he was sort of forced then to file these gun charges against Hunter Biden, but had the statute of limitations pass on some of his far more serious tax crimes. No, Hunter Biden did not really get totally fair justice here. He deserved worse. That'll do it for John Girardi Show, See you next time on Power Talk