WEBVTT

1
00:00:00.160 --> 00:00:06.040
One of the things that is I
think maybe more controversial than the average Joe

2
00:00:06.160 --> 00:00:16.039
American would think or would understand,
is the concept of rights. What is

3
00:00:16.239 --> 00:00:24.920
a right now, in a certain
sense, what a right is is a

4
00:00:25.000 --> 00:00:34.759
legal guarantee to something, some kind
of legal protection enacted in law guaranteeing something.

5
00:00:34.960 --> 00:00:42.240
All right, I have a right
to freedom of speech. It's basically

6
00:00:42.280 --> 00:00:52.479
a legal guarantee or a legal protection
that the government cannot engage in adverse actions

7
00:00:53.200 --> 00:01:00.679
against me based on the content of
stuff that I talk about within the sort

8
00:01:00.679 --> 00:01:07.120
of historical parameters of the kinds of
things the First Amendment and the term of

9
00:01:07.239 --> 00:01:11.680
art freedom of speech is designed to
protect, which chiefly concerns questions of political

10
00:01:11.760 --> 00:01:15.079
and social and cultural relevance. A
lot of the stuff I talk about on

11
00:01:15.120 --> 00:01:22.000
this show. Right, So if
now, there's certain things that are within

12
00:01:22.040 --> 00:01:26.359
that ambit, certain things that are
not me using potty language on the radio,

13
00:01:26.400 --> 00:01:29.200
for example, is not within the
ambit of the First Amendment, And

14
00:01:29.239 --> 00:01:34.319
I don't have the same protection for
saying it. If I come on here

15
00:01:34.359 --> 00:01:42.280
and curse a bunch, the FCC
will find power talk. That's but that's

16
00:01:42.319 --> 00:01:49.680
censorship, Yeah, well, it's
censorship around obscenity which is not necessarily protected

17
00:01:49.799 --> 00:01:53.959
by the First Amendment. To the
same extent that you know, me giving

18
00:01:53.000 --> 00:01:59.840
my opinion on Joe Biden's policies is
right. But it's a legal guarantee.

19
00:01:59.840 --> 00:02:06.599
It's a kind of legal guarantee that
I can't be prosecuted for the content of

20
00:02:07.040 --> 00:02:14.560
what I'm trying to say about these
topics. And if I am prosecuted or

21
00:02:14.639 --> 00:02:23.000
subject to other kinds of government action
adverse action, I can vindicate my rights

22
00:02:23.039 --> 00:02:28.520
in court. Okay, So it's
a kind of leg A right is a

23
00:02:28.599 --> 00:02:36.840
kind of legal protection, a kind
of legal guarantee that you can do certain

24
00:02:36.960 --> 00:02:44.080
kinds of things without adverse consequences.
It means I can own a gun without

25
00:02:44.159 --> 00:02:50.759
the state confiscating it from me,
or penalizing me, or taxing me,

26
00:02:51.080 --> 00:02:54.759
or burdening me. Well a certain
extent, maybe you can tax in certain

27
00:02:54.759 --> 00:03:00.840
ways without taking too much adverse action
against me. You can't quarter a British

28
00:03:00.840 --> 00:03:06.159
soldier in my house. The good
old Third Amendment. You can't unreasonably The

29
00:03:06.199 --> 00:03:10.360
Fourth Amendment provides a right against unreasonable
searches and seizure. Police officers can't come

30
00:03:10.360 --> 00:03:14.280
in my house without a warrant.
And if they try to do that,

31
00:03:14.560 --> 00:03:20.800
then I have legal protections I can
pursue. So a right, in its

32
00:03:20.840 --> 00:03:24.879
most basic sense, is something that
exists within the context of American law.

33
00:03:27.159 --> 00:03:31.840
It's a guarantee within American law,
and it's rooted either in the US Constitution

34
00:03:32.000 --> 00:03:42.159
or the California Constitution, within federal
statutory law or California statutory law. It's

35
00:03:42.199 --> 00:03:51.199
a kind of guarantee, a legal
guarantee against adverse action by the government against

36
00:03:51.280 --> 00:03:58.000
me for doing X, Y or
Z conduct or adverse action by private individuals.

37
00:04:00.240 --> 00:04:05.039
You have a sort of right to
You have a right to go to

38
00:04:05.719 --> 00:04:12.919
businesses, to engage in businesses,
engage with businesses as a customer. That

39
00:04:13.080 --> 00:04:18.800
right cannot be fringed, infringed rather
on the basis of you being an African

40
00:04:18.800 --> 00:04:25.600
American. Okay, this was the
whole revolution of the Civil Rights Acts that

41
00:04:25.720 --> 00:04:31.000
basically you had private businesses shutting African
Americans out of, you know, whole

42
00:04:31.040 --> 00:04:40.800
sectors of cities and whole industries in
various ways, huge restrictions on basic living

43
00:04:40.879 --> 00:04:44.560
on the part of African Americans.
You can't go to all these different grocery

44
00:04:44.600 --> 00:04:46.600
stores, you can't go to these
kinds of hotels. You can't go to

45
00:04:46.639 --> 00:04:54.040
these kinds of restaurants. These are
kind of basic essential services that allow people

46
00:04:54.240 --> 00:05:00.079
to live and function and move around
in society and Africa, Americans were sort

47
00:05:00.120 --> 00:05:05.240
of shut out from a lot of
them, a lot of these services and

48
00:05:05.279 --> 00:05:12.279
a lot of parts of towns throughout
the United States on the basis of nothing

49
00:05:12.279 --> 00:05:16.959
else other than their skin color.
And so the Civil Rights Acts forbade that.

50
00:05:17.199 --> 00:05:25.199
So, no, you have a
right to go to a you know,

51
00:05:25.399 --> 00:05:30.360
to go to a grocery store and
not be shut out from that service

52
00:05:30.519 --> 00:05:32.360
purely on the basis of your skin
color. Now you can be shut out

53
00:05:32.519 --> 00:05:38.000
of a business on the basis of
other things. No shoes, no shirt,

54
00:05:38.079 --> 00:05:43.879
no service is a perfectly legal form
of discrimination. You don't have the

55
00:05:43.959 --> 00:05:47.360
right to go to a business with
no shoes and no shirt and just expect

56
00:05:47.439 --> 00:05:57.040
service. So a right is again
it's a kind of guarantee from the government

57
00:05:57.120 --> 00:06:02.639
that you can do something. But
people use the word right to mean other

58
00:06:02.759 --> 00:06:08.319
kinds of things that I think are
a little bit more loosey goosey. I

59
00:06:08.680 --> 00:06:14.000
think we start to use and I
think we get into problems when we sort

60
00:06:14.000 --> 00:06:24.199
of mix these two uses of these
terms. Everyone has the right to an

61
00:06:24.319 --> 00:06:31.800
education. Okay, well what does
that mean? What exactly do you see

62
00:06:31.920 --> 00:06:35.839
how it's kind of different there.
I have a right against an unreasonable search.

63
00:06:36.399 --> 00:06:42.279
That's a fairly concrete thing. You
need a search warrant before you come

64
00:06:42.279 --> 00:06:46.199
into my house. Okay, that's
a very concrete thing. It's something that's

65
00:06:46.600 --> 00:06:53.040
within the legal process. It's within
the realm of legal processes. I can

66
00:06:53.079 --> 00:06:58.160
appeal if a cop comes into my
house and searches for things. You know

67
00:06:58.199 --> 00:07:01.800
that there are certain circumstances in which
a police officer, if he's got a

68
00:07:01.800 --> 00:07:05.759
preponderance of the evidence indicating that someone
went into a house, you know,

69
00:07:06.199 --> 00:07:10.959
they see someone stab a guy and
then run into a house, they don't

70
00:07:10.959 --> 00:07:13.680
need a search warrant first before they
go into the house and catch the guy

71
00:07:13.720 --> 00:07:18.199
who's got the bloody knife. So
there's an appeal process for that. But

72
00:07:18.279 --> 00:07:26.160
it's a fairly concrete thing. I
have a right to an education. Well,

73
00:07:26.160 --> 00:07:30.920
that's a much more nebulous thing,
right, What does that mean?

74
00:07:30.959 --> 00:07:36.759
I have a right to an education
if you purely just mean I can't be

75
00:07:39.199 --> 00:07:44.959
hindered by the government from going to
a school. Okay, But is when

76
00:07:45.000 --> 00:07:47.959
you say people have a right to
a good education. That's almost like a

77
00:07:48.000 --> 00:07:57.800
positive You're guaranteeing some sort of positive
thing, Especially when you use this language

78
00:07:57.839 --> 00:08:03.680
of rights, which we in America
believe to be like a very ironclad thing.

79
00:08:05.279 --> 00:08:07.480
It's hard to say for a state, everyone has a right to a

80
00:08:07.519 --> 00:08:13.360
good education. Okay, Well,
if you go through Fresno Unified, for

81
00:08:13.399 --> 00:08:18.839
example, my constant education punching bag, and you can't read or write by

82
00:08:18.839 --> 00:08:20.759
the end of it, or you
can't read it right very well, were

83
00:08:20.800 --> 00:08:26.879
your rights infringed? Well, do
you think you have the ability to sue

84
00:08:26.000 --> 00:08:33.080
as a result? No, So
what does that even mean? I think

85
00:08:33.120 --> 00:08:39.759
Americans love the language of rights,
but use the term in all kinds of

86
00:08:39.759 --> 00:08:43.240
ways that are sort of loosey goosey, And that seems specifically to be what's

87
00:08:43.240 --> 00:08:50.120
happening with a proposed ballot initiative.
That's going to sound really nice, but

88
00:08:50.240 --> 00:08:56.279
the practical implications of what it's going
to mean, I think could be way

89
00:08:56.360 --> 00:09:03.840
more far reaching. And it's the
kind of thing that makes me hate California's

90
00:09:03.320 --> 00:09:09.120
pure democracy systems, like the ballot
initiative process. Should from the Sacramento Bee,

91
00:09:09.120 --> 00:09:16.039
Should clean air and water be a
fundamental human right California voters to decide.

92
00:09:18.039 --> 00:09:20.200
In the Golden State, we pride
ore This is a piece, an

93
00:09:20.240 --> 00:09:26.080
opinion piece in the Fresno in the
Sacramento be written by Terry Tamminin and James

94
00:09:26.200 --> 00:09:37.919
Struck, who are former secretaries of
the California Environmental Protection Agency. In the

95
00:09:37.919 --> 00:09:43.879
Golden State, we pride ourselves on
our future facing environmental values and our climate

96
00:09:43.000 --> 00:09:48.000
leadership. We I mean you guys, the authors of this piece who ran

97
00:09:48.080 --> 00:09:52.000
the California APA. Maybe, but
I don't know that well. Most Californians

98
00:09:52.000 --> 00:09:56.279
think that way anyway. At the
same time, nearly one million residents of

99
00:09:56.320 --> 00:10:01.440
California, primarily in disadvantaged community,
are without access to clean drinking water,

100
00:10:01.759 --> 00:10:05.519
and California cities such as Los Angeles, Long Beach and Fresno are burdened year

101
00:10:05.559 --> 00:10:09.639
after year by some of the dirtiest, most polluted air in the nation.

102
00:10:09.639 --> 00:10:18.480
The glaring duality underscores the failure of
our current legal framework to ensure the fundamental

103
00:10:18.600 --> 00:10:22.840
rights of all Californians to clean air, water, and a healthy environment.

104
00:10:22.120 --> 00:10:26.919
It's time for a change. It's
time for California to enshrine this right into

105
00:10:26.919 --> 00:10:37.440
our state constitution. So will.
I mean, this is and this is

106
00:10:37.480 --> 00:10:43.519
the thing where we're going to say
that anything we like that is good,

107
00:10:45.919 --> 00:10:50.440
we're going to enshrine as a legal
right within the state constitution. Does that

108
00:10:50.559 --> 00:10:58.600
actually make sense? What does it
mean to have a right to clean air?

109
00:10:58.639 --> 00:11:03.799
I mean, yes, I think
maybe a healthier way of understanding this

110
00:11:05.159 --> 00:11:13.639
is that as human persons, we
are owed certain kinds of goods on account

111
00:11:13.720 --> 00:11:24.279
of our basic human dignity, which
means that certain kinds of goods should be

112
00:11:24.320 --> 00:11:35.440
respected in our regard. Every child
conceived into the world should have a mom

113
00:11:35.519 --> 00:11:43.039
and dad who loves them. Every
child should get an education of some sort.

114
00:11:43.279 --> 00:11:46.759
I think thinking about it in terms
of these are things that people are

115
00:11:46.840 --> 00:11:54.159
owed on account of being members of
the human family. I think that's a

116
00:11:54.679 --> 00:11:56.679
more sensible way of talking about it
than a right. Well, we have

117
00:11:56.720 --> 00:12:03.759
a constitutional right to you know,
have two parents. Well okay, well

118
00:12:03.759 --> 00:12:09.600
what if my mom's a druggie and
my dad's a druggy and they place me

119
00:12:09.759 --> 00:12:16.559
for adoption, or my dad is
a druggie and leaves or abandons the family

120
00:12:16.600 --> 00:12:20.799
and I only have my mom.
Has my fundamental right been violated in such

121
00:12:20.799 --> 00:12:24.000
a way that I can sue somebody
that I can vindicate my rights in the

122
00:12:24.039 --> 00:12:28.840
courts. Well, then we're talking
about rights in two different senses. If

123
00:12:28.840 --> 00:12:33.159
that's not the case. And I
feel like what this is trying to do

124
00:12:33.240 --> 00:12:39.200
is take something that, yes,
it's a something that human beings are owed,

125
00:12:41.200 --> 00:12:46.399
that human beings should have, which
is the ability to grow up in

126
00:12:46.440 --> 00:12:52.639
a clean environment. Yes, people
should have that, but I think it's

127
00:12:52.720 --> 00:12:58.600
a little bizarre to enshrine it within
the state constitution. I think what this

128
00:12:58.759 --> 00:13:09.600
is going to be. This is
going to be framed as this is guaranteeing

129
00:13:09.639 --> 00:13:15.159
a right to a clean environment for
individuals, and really what it's going to

130
00:13:15.200 --> 00:13:24.039
be is some kind of carbon emissions
mandated limit on the state, on businesses,

131
00:13:24.600 --> 00:13:30.960
on political on municipalities. Basically,
this is going to become some kind

132
00:13:31.000 --> 00:13:35.960
of carbon emissions tax or some kind
of carbon emissions cap, or some kind

133
00:13:35.000 --> 00:13:43.240
of environmental massive statewide environmental regulation.
Because unless you're going to make it,

134
00:13:45.480 --> 00:13:48.279
if it's not that, then it
makes no sense to put it in the

135
00:13:48.320 --> 00:13:54.399
state constitution. Okay, we don't
vindicate like certain kinds of Again, children

136
00:13:54.399 --> 00:13:58.759
have a right to to loving parents
in the sense that that is something that

137
00:14:00.039 --> 00:14:03.360
every human being should have. That
is something every being human being is owed,

138
00:14:03.600 --> 00:14:09.559
But we don't have a process for
legally vindicating that right, that obligation

139
00:14:09.720 --> 00:14:13.000
to people all the time. Again, if your dad walks out on you

140
00:14:13.399 --> 00:14:18.080
and abandons his family, in many
cases, you can't force that person to

141
00:14:18.080 --> 00:14:20.679
come back into the home to take
care of you the way it should be

142
00:14:22.960 --> 00:14:28.720
you. Certainly you can't necessarily use
the courts to accomplish that goal. People

143
00:14:28.720 --> 00:14:31.519
are owed two parents, people should
have two parents, but you can't necessarily

144
00:14:31.559 --> 00:14:35.519
use the courts to vindicate that.
People are owed a clean environment. But

145
00:14:35.600 --> 00:14:39.960
how do you bend the courts to
mandate that? How do you put that

146
00:14:39.039 --> 00:14:43.360
in the state constitution? And what
does that actually mean effectively once it's in

147
00:14:43.399 --> 00:14:48.919
the state constitution. Well, I
think what it's just going to mean is

148
00:14:48.000 --> 00:14:56.480
a massive carbon limit, some kind
of massive emissions limit on businesses. We're

149
00:14:56.480 --> 00:15:01.519
going to dig into what this could
mean in the next segment. This is

150
00:15:01.519 --> 00:15:09.159
the John Girardi Show here on Power
Talk. There's a proposed California state constitutional

151
00:15:09.200 --> 00:15:13.919
amendment. It's working its way through
the state legislature to guarantee for Californians,

152
00:15:15.039 --> 00:15:20.159
quote, a right to a clean
environment, to a healthy environment, rather

153
00:15:22.399 --> 00:15:28.360
to clean air and water and a
healthy environment. And you might think that

154
00:15:28.440 --> 00:15:33.759
sounds really broad, that sounds really
general, that sounds really vague. Yes,

155
00:15:33.200 --> 00:15:37.120
it is broad, it is general, and it is vague. I've

156
00:15:37.120 --> 00:15:41.200
got the actual text of this.
So the way that constitutional amendments work in

157
00:15:41.200 --> 00:15:46.559
California, there's a couple of different
ways you can amend the California state Constitution.

158
00:15:46.720 --> 00:15:52.519
And for those who need a refresher
course, for our federal government,

159
00:15:52.559 --> 00:15:56.240
the United States government, we have
the Constitution of the United States, and

160
00:15:56.320 --> 00:16:04.559
this is our foundational law. Any
simple laws that are passed by Congress,

161
00:16:06.879 --> 00:16:08.919
majority in the House, majority in
the Senate, and the President signs it,

162
00:16:10.720 --> 00:16:18.720
those laws have to be consistent with
the US Constitution. So the US

163
00:16:18.840 --> 00:16:26.399
Constitution is fundamental. It trumps any
normal laws passed by Congress. Okay,

164
00:16:26.759 --> 00:16:33.039
when the thirteenth Amendment was ratified,
which abolished slavery in the United States,

165
00:16:33.639 --> 00:16:42.000
well, any prior American law,
any prior American laws that operated on the

166
00:16:42.039 --> 00:16:45.600
assumption that slavery was okay and regulated
slavery like this, and that all those

167
00:16:45.639 --> 00:16:51.440
prior laws got wiped out. Why
Well, because the thirteenth Amendment came into

168
00:16:51.519 --> 00:17:00.360
effect. If the Constitution says not
X. Everything that's said X beforehand is

169
00:17:00.399 --> 00:17:03.200
wiped out. The constitution takes precedence
over normal laws. The same is true

170
00:17:03.200 --> 00:17:08.720
in California. We have the California
State Constitution. California has a constitution just

171
00:17:08.759 --> 00:17:14.799
like the federal government does in California. Then on top of that has normal

172
00:17:14.920 --> 00:17:18.599
laws passed by the state legislature of
California. A majority of the Assembly votes

173
00:17:18.599 --> 00:17:22.160
for something, a majority of the
state Senate votes for something, and the

174
00:17:22.200 --> 00:17:27.039
governor signs it into law. So
our normal laws passing California have to be

175
00:17:27.079 --> 00:17:33.400
consistent with the California State Constitution.
Now amending the California State Constitution, there

176
00:17:33.440 --> 00:17:36.960
are a couple of different ways to
do it, so adding new things into

177
00:17:37.000 --> 00:17:44.160
the state Constitution. The method that
this proposal is going through is it's getting

178
00:17:44.160 --> 00:17:48.559
two thirds majority votes in the Assembly
in the state Senate before being put on

179
00:17:48.839 --> 00:17:56.000
and that automatically would qualify it for
the ballot to be a ballot initiative voted

180
00:17:56.039 --> 00:18:06.039
on by the voters of California.
So this is an amendment to the California

181
00:18:06.039 --> 00:18:12.000
Constitution, a proposed amendment to the
California Constitution to say that the people should

182
00:18:12.039 --> 00:18:15.160
This is the text that's going to
be at it. The people shall have

183
00:18:15.240 --> 00:18:21.400
a right to clean air and water
and a healthy environment, considering the general

184
00:18:21.400 --> 00:18:26.759
well being and other needs of the
people. The principles inherent in the rights

185
00:18:26.799 --> 00:18:33.160
recognized in this subdivision A shall serve
as a guide to all branches of government

186
00:18:33.240 --> 00:18:38.640
in the performance of their official duties. All branches of California government. The

187
00:18:38.720 --> 00:18:44.640
rights recognized in some division A clean
air, water, and a healthy environment

188
00:18:45.200 --> 00:18:48.559
shall inure to all people in equal
measure, and shall not be construed or

189
00:18:48.559 --> 00:18:52.519
applied in a manner that is inconsistent
with duly enacted laws of the State or

190
00:18:52.559 --> 00:19:00.160
other rights set forth in this Constitution. Now, they Chamber of Commerce,

191
00:19:00.200 --> 00:19:08.519
and I'm not like an unqualified fanboy
for the cal Chamber points out that this

192
00:19:08.640 --> 00:19:15.960
is a hugely broadly vaguely worded thing, and god knows how it's going to

193
00:19:17.000 --> 00:19:22.960
be interpreted. And this is the
problem with putting this, this American obsession

194
00:19:22.039 --> 00:19:27.240
with calling everything a constitutional right,
using the language of rights in all these

195
00:19:27.279 --> 00:19:33.240
different ways. Yes, like people
are owed, people should have clean air,

196
00:19:33.359 --> 00:19:40.279
clean water, and good environment.
But there's a difference between that and

197
00:19:40.359 --> 00:19:47.880
something that's very concrete and actionable sort
of negative protection like no unreasonable search and

198
00:19:47.920 --> 00:19:56.240
seizure. You need a warrant before
you search my house. So the Colchamber

199
00:19:56.279 --> 00:20:00.559
of Commerce wrote enshrining into the state's
constitution a general right to clean air and

200
00:20:00.599 --> 00:20:06.400
clean water is unnecessary, and then
go through all the different California environmental regulations

201
00:20:06.400 --> 00:20:15.359
that are already on the books.
It is therefore unclear what new substantive protections,

202
00:20:15.640 --> 00:20:19.799
if any, this new constitutional right
provides Californians that is not already being

203
00:20:19.799 --> 00:20:25.319
afforded under existing local, state,
and federal environmental laws and regulations. What

204
00:20:25.519 --> 00:20:30.440
is clear, however, are unintended
negative consequences resulting from the placement of such

205
00:20:30.519 --> 00:20:34.319
rights in the state's constitution. More
than a mere redundancy, it lays the

206
00:20:34.440 --> 00:20:41.039
legal foundation to challenge virtually any state
or local government infrastructure, energy procurement proposal,

207
00:20:41.119 --> 00:20:47.240
or housing project on the basis that
any one of them threatens they're new

208
00:20:47.680 --> 00:20:51.640
and as yet undefined general right.
And that's true. I mean it talks

209
00:20:51.680 --> 00:20:55.960
about all branches of California government.
And guess what. Municipal governments, city

210
00:20:56.000 --> 00:21:00.240
governments, county governments, those are
all just extent school districts, those are

211
00:21:00.279 --> 00:21:07.000
all just extensions of state government,
right local governments, municipal governments, county

212
00:21:07.000 --> 00:21:12.480
governments and all that. Those only
exist as creations and extensions of California government.

213
00:21:12.519 --> 00:21:18.119
They don't have the same kind of
independence from California state government that say,

214
00:21:18.720 --> 00:21:22.279
you know, a state government has
from the federal government. For example,

215
00:21:26.079 --> 00:21:33.039
layering a constitutional amendment on top of
the extensive matrix of existing laws undermines

216
00:21:33.079 --> 00:21:40.200
their applicability and effectiveness in favor of
an unworkable framework in which no growth would

217
00:21:40.240 --> 00:21:45.440
become the only option. And that
might be right. I mean, what

218
00:21:45.559 --> 00:21:53.680
are we defining as clean air,
clean water, and a healthy environment.

219
00:21:56.079 --> 00:22:03.799
It doesn't say do we just go
by existing California statutes. I don't know.

220
00:22:07.000 --> 00:22:15.200
Seems seems like a kakamimi idea to
me. Now, when we return,

221
00:22:15.319 --> 00:22:19.240
I want to talk about how this
is going to work and other problems

222
00:22:19.279 --> 00:22:26.400
between the state constitution and statutes,
how this actually relates to something we dealt

223
00:22:26.400 --> 00:22:30.359
with and fighting against Proposition one,
which is the big abortion amendment that's next

224
00:22:30.400 --> 00:22:37.920
on the John Girardi Show. There's
this proposed ballot initiative in California to guarantee

225
00:22:37.960 --> 00:22:45.680
as a California state constitutional right,
a constitutional right to clean air, clean

226
00:22:45.759 --> 00:22:52.960
water, and a quote healthy environment. That's all it says. It doesn't

227
00:22:52.000 --> 00:23:00.400
define anything any more precisely than that, and so people are asking, well,

228
00:23:00.400 --> 00:23:04.119
well, this seems like a bad
idea to put this in the state

229
00:23:04.160 --> 00:23:10.119
constitution when we have no actual definition
for it. Now, the opinion piece

230
00:23:10.119 --> 00:23:15.000
in the Sacramento be about this possible
ballot initiative that we'll be facing. And

231
00:23:15.079 --> 00:23:19.839
so just so you guys are aware
of the process, the state legislature is

232
00:23:19.960 --> 00:23:27.359
voting to have this be a proposed
ballot initiative that the voters of California would

233
00:23:27.440 --> 00:23:33.319
vote for, I think this November, and if the voters approve it,

234
00:23:33.319 --> 00:23:45.759
it would become enshrined in the California
State Constitution. Now, so that's the

235
00:23:45.920 --> 00:23:51.359
process this would go under. But
again, what does this bill, what

236
00:23:51.400 --> 00:23:55.839
does this proposed amendment to the California
Constitution say? This is literally all it

237
00:23:55.960 --> 00:24:00.720
says. The people shall have a
right to clean air and water and a

238
00:24:00.839 --> 00:24:04.359
healthy environment, considering the general well
being and other needs of the people.

239
00:24:07.480 --> 00:24:11.160
These principles shall serve as a guide
to all branches of government in the performance

240
00:24:11.200 --> 00:24:15.920
of their official duties. That is
more or less all it says. Clean

241
00:24:15.960 --> 00:24:22.920
air and water, healthy environment.
Do we have a definition of that?

242
00:24:22.000 --> 00:24:29.079
Do we have a definition based on
emissions and particulate you know, counts or

243
00:24:29.119 --> 00:24:33.960
whatever, what constitutes clean air or
clean water? Do we have any definitions

244
00:24:33.960 --> 00:24:40.920
about how this interfaces with existing California
state laws regulating emissions, cap and trade,

245
00:24:42.400 --> 00:24:48.079
all you know, environmental impact reports, and any assessment of how that

246
00:24:48.119 --> 00:24:53.000
relates to the existing layer upon layer
upon layer of California law that already regulates

247
00:24:53.039 --> 00:24:59.480
the environment. No, nothing,
nothing, It's just there. Is it

248
00:24:59.519 --> 00:25:04.279
guaranteed something more than existing California statutes? Doesn't? I don't know. Does

249
00:25:04.279 --> 00:25:10.839
it? Does it mandate? Does
it mandate something equal to existing California statutes?

250
00:25:10.880 --> 00:25:17.480
Do we do? We We're not
changing at all. So to try

251
00:25:17.559 --> 00:25:22.960
to read these tea leaves, all
I've got so far is this op ed

252
00:25:22.960 --> 00:25:27.680
in the Sacramento Be in favor of
this constitutional amendment which I've been talking about

253
00:25:27.680 --> 00:25:32.079
throughout the show again, written by
Terry Tammanan and James Strock, who are

254
00:25:32.119 --> 00:25:36.920
former heads of the California Environmental Protection
Agency, the California state version of the

255
00:25:36.960 --> 00:25:47.920
EPA. Now they write that here's
what they write, opposition to the proposed

256
00:25:47.920 --> 00:25:51.440
amendment has begun to line up.
This is the two former heads of the

257
00:25:51.480 --> 00:25:56.000
California EPA writing this. The California
Chamber of Commerce has placed it on its

258
00:25:56.160 --> 00:26:02.720
job killer list, arguing that existing
environmental regulations are efficient to protect California's kind

259
00:26:02.759 --> 00:26:04.359
of misstates what the California and Chamber
of Commerce was saying. What they were

260
00:26:04.400 --> 00:26:08.680
saying is we already have a ton
of environmental regulation and it's not clear what

261
00:26:08.759 --> 00:26:15.640
this does on top of everything that's
already on the books. This is entirely

262
00:26:15.720 --> 00:26:22.039
vague, and it just leaves every
any kind of development or growth subject to

263
00:26:22.640 --> 00:26:27.480
questioning as to whether it infringes on
this right to clean air, clean water,

264
00:26:27.799 --> 00:26:30.960
and healthy environment. That's actually what
the California Chamber of Commerce said,

265
00:26:32.000 --> 00:26:37.880
but let's gloss past that. Here's
what these two former heads of the California

266
00:26:37.880 --> 00:26:48.079
EPAS say. The reality is that
these regulations California's existing exhaustive regime of environmental

267
00:26:48.160 --> 00:26:56.839
law, all of California environmental law, the extensive ambitious programs of and eliminating

268
00:26:56.920 --> 00:27:03.440
all non electric vehicles by twenty thirty
five, Cap and Trade sequa, which

269
00:27:03.480 --> 00:27:11.279
allows random yahoos to sue for any
building development for almost any building development.

270
00:27:11.720 --> 00:27:18.799
All these layer upon layer upon layer
of California environmental law, these regulations,

271
00:27:19.559 --> 00:27:26.200
right, these two former heads of
the California EPA are often inadequate, under

272
00:27:26.319 --> 00:27:33.119
enforced, and subject to political maneuvering. By enshrining environmental rights in our state

273
00:27:33.200 --> 00:27:42.720
constitution, we create a firm foundation
upon which future environmental policies and regulations can

274
00:27:42.759 --> 00:27:56.079
be built. So what does that
mean? Again? This question is if

275
00:27:56.079 --> 00:28:00.000
we're going to put a right to
clean air, clean water, and how

276
00:28:00.000 --> 00:28:03.000
health the environment, put that in
our state constitution, what does that do

277
00:28:03.319 --> 00:28:07.799
to the law on the ground day
in and day out in California. Does

278
00:28:07.839 --> 00:28:15.559
that mean that existing California laws are
actually not enough that we have a new

279
00:28:15.680 --> 00:28:23.000
standard we have to live up to. Well, they're sort of talking out

280
00:28:23.000 --> 00:28:26.920
of both sides of their mouth,
these former heads of the California EPA.

281
00:28:26.960 --> 00:28:33.920
On the one hand, they're saying, our California existing environmental laws are often

282
00:28:33.000 --> 00:28:47.599
inadequate, often under enforced, often
subject to political maneuvering. So by putting

283
00:28:47.680 --> 00:28:56.799
environmental rights in our state constitution,
we create a firm found day So let

284
00:28:56.880 --> 00:29:00.720
me pause before I get to the
next point. If our existing California law

285
00:29:00.839 --> 00:29:08.400
is inadequate. You're proposing this as
something to enhance it. Right, If

286
00:29:08.440 --> 00:29:12.599
you're arguing we need to do this
because existing California environmental law is inadequate,

287
00:29:12.599 --> 00:29:17.799
then you're saying this very generally worded
thing that we're going to put in the

288
00:29:17.799 --> 00:29:25.000
California State Constitution is enforcing some new
and higher standards. But they then say,

289
00:29:26.039 --> 00:29:30.279
by enshrining environmental rights in our state
constitution, we create a firm foundation

290
00:29:30.559 --> 00:29:38.519
upon which future environmental policies and regulations
can be built. So what's going to

291
00:29:38.559 --> 00:29:45.359
guide us is future environmental policies and
regulations. That's the more specific thing.

292
00:29:45.440 --> 00:29:49.640
And how does it give us a
more firm foundation? All right? The

293
00:29:49.680 --> 00:29:56.279
state of California can regulate the environment
as it pleases. It can already do

294
00:29:56.359 --> 00:30:03.000
that. There's nothing about putting this
in the state constitution that strengthens or weakens

295
00:30:03.039 --> 00:30:11.559
the ability of the State of California
to pass environmental laws and relevantly empowered executive

296
00:30:11.599 --> 00:30:17.039
agencies to issue environmental regulations. They
can still do that, Okay. State

297
00:30:17.119 --> 00:30:22.559
governments have the ability to regulate the
environment. That's not in question. Passing

298
00:30:22.559 --> 00:30:33.279
this constitutional amendment doesn't change that.
So it's like they're kind of talking out

299
00:30:33.279 --> 00:30:34.759
of both but they're sort of talking
out of both sides of their mouth.

300
00:30:36.559 --> 00:30:41.480
It creates a firm foundation upon which
future environmental policies and regulations can be built.

301
00:30:41.599 --> 00:30:45.160
So proponents of this are going to
have to try to get around the

302
00:30:45.200 --> 00:30:51.400
obvious question of you're putting this really
broadly worded thing into the state constitution and

303
00:30:51.440 --> 00:31:00.480
it's going to cause massive uncertainty every
time a municipality wants to approve of a

304
00:31:00.480 --> 00:31:06.119
big building project. Is the state
going to be able to swoop in and

305
00:31:06.160 --> 00:31:08.839
stop it on the grounds that it
violates people's rights to a clean environment,

306
00:31:10.680 --> 00:31:15.680
to a healthy environment. And probably, I would imagine proponents of this will

307
00:31:15.680 --> 00:31:15.680
say no, no, no,
no, no, no, no no

308
00:31:15.680 --> 00:31:19.559
no, it's not changing anything on
the ground level. It's just providing principles

309
00:31:19.559 --> 00:31:27.559
for future future action. Now that
doesn't make sense, and frankly, it

310
00:31:27.599 --> 00:31:30.799
reminds me of some of the debates
we had over Proposition one, which was

311
00:31:30.839 --> 00:31:34.400
passed in twenty twenty two. This
was the big abortion amendment, which said

312
00:31:34.440 --> 00:31:40.720
that abortion is now the right to
an abortion is a fundamental right in California

313
00:31:40.799 --> 00:31:45.240
law. And so here's the problem. I'll connect this, I promise I

314
00:31:45.279 --> 00:31:52.279
won't just make this an abortion segment. Proposition one put a very broadly worded

315
00:31:52.440 --> 00:31:56.079
right to abortion into the California state
Constitution. It just says the state cannot

316
00:31:56.079 --> 00:32:01.039
interfere with a woman's right to an
abortion. No qualification, no qualification about

317
00:32:01.039 --> 00:32:06.839
the kind of abortion, the nature
of abortion. Nothing. State cannot interfere

318
00:32:06.880 --> 00:32:12.279
with a women's right to an abortion. To sorry a person's right, because

319
00:32:12.319 --> 00:32:15.640
California thinks that women are not the
only people who can have abortions, all

320
00:32:15.720 --> 00:32:24.640
right, But the problem is,
existing California statutory law governing abortion says that

321
00:32:25.759 --> 00:32:31.359
abortions after viability are only legal if
the doctor deems them to be a threat

322
00:32:31.359 --> 00:32:40.240
to the mother's health. So that's
in the California statute that was passed by

323
00:32:40.240 --> 00:32:43.640
a majority of the Assembly, majority
of the state Senate, signed by a

324
00:32:43.640 --> 00:32:49.480
governor. That's on the books as
a normal California law. So people then

325
00:32:49.519 --> 00:32:53.319
ask, well, if you're putting
a broader right to abortion into the state

326
00:32:53.400 --> 00:33:00.359
constitution, does that mean that we
now have legal abortion completely free and clear

327
00:33:00.400 --> 00:33:07.640
in the third trimester? That that
old restriction on post viability abortions and viability

328
00:33:07.720 --> 00:33:10.319
is around twenty two, twenty three, twenty four weeks. It's the point

329
00:33:10.319 --> 00:33:15.920
in pregnancy where a child can survive
delivery kind of varies kid to kid.

330
00:33:16.000 --> 00:33:20.640
If you're putting into the state constitution, which is supreme, which is our

331
00:33:20.640 --> 00:33:24.920
foundational law in the state of California, which which trumps any prior existing normal

332
00:33:25.039 --> 00:33:29.160
laws passed as a statute by the
Assembly, the Senate, and the governor.

333
00:33:30.400 --> 00:33:36.680
If you're putting into the California State
Constitution a broader protection, then are

334
00:33:36.720 --> 00:33:39.680
you legalizing third trimester abortion? Now, the politicians who pushed that know that

335
00:33:39.799 --> 00:33:44.559
third trimester abortion is not popular even
in California, and so they say no,

336
00:33:44.559 --> 00:33:45.799
no, no, no, no
no, no existing law holds.

337
00:33:46.279 --> 00:33:54.640
Well, that makes no sense.
If your statutory right is narrower, but

338
00:33:54.759 --> 00:34:02.400
your constitutional guarantee is broader, then
the constitutional guarante Trump's So, I think,

339
00:34:02.440 --> 00:34:12.800
what with this environmental constitutional amendment,
this proposed constitutional amendment for our California

340
00:34:12.840 --> 00:34:17.679
State Constitution to guarantee in very broad
terms that everyone has a right to clean

341
00:34:17.719 --> 00:34:23.039
air, clean up water, and
a healthy environment end quote. That's an

342
00:34:23.320 --> 00:34:30.679
enormously broad right. It's much broader
than any of the specific environmental laws and

343
00:34:30.719 --> 00:34:37.519
regulations that are on the books that
were passed by the state legislature or authorized

344
00:34:37.559 --> 00:34:46.079
by state regulators. So what's going
to control. The constitutional amendment controls the

345
00:34:47.159 --> 00:34:54.679
California state constitution. If it's guaranteeing
something bigger then the specific guarantees of California

346
00:34:54.679 --> 00:34:59.639
statutes, then that's going to control. And I agree with the California Chamber

347
00:34:59.639 --> 00:35:07.000
of Commerce on this. If we
pass this some big, huge broad right

348
00:35:07.119 --> 00:35:13.000
to clean air, clean water,
and a healthy environment. I want people

349
00:35:13.000 --> 00:35:15.679
to have clean air. I want
people to have clean water. I want

350
00:35:15.679 --> 00:35:17.639
people to have a healthy environment.
But guess what, those terms are subject

351
00:35:17.719 --> 00:35:23.400
to very different interpretations by different people. And I think it's going to lead

352
00:35:23.440 --> 00:35:29.599
to any development in this state,
which, by the way, we desperately

353
00:35:29.639 --> 00:35:31.360
need. We desperately need more housing. I don't know how we can talk

354
00:35:31.360 --> 00:35:35.000
out of one side of our mouth
about the desperate need for more housing.

355
00:35:35.159 --> 00:35:40.639
But at the same time past this
wildly over broad measure guaranteeing clean air,

356
00:35:40.719 --> 00:35:46.239
clean water, healthy environment, where
now any proposed housing could be subject to

357
00:35:46.360 --> 00:35:52.239
Oh what it threatens my right to
the construction and emissions that it's going to

358
00:35:52.280 --> 00:35:55.119
cause. It's going to threaten the
right of people in this community to a

359
00:35:55.199 --> 00:36:05.360
quote healthy environment under some vaguely,
broadly determined criteria that as yet we don't

360
00:36:05.400 --> 00:36:12.679
have. Don't vote for broad vague
general constitutional amendments. It's a bad idea,

361
00:36:13.079 --> 00:36:16.000
and I almost guarantee this stupid thing's
going to pass, because who wants

362
00:36:16.000 --> 00:36:22.239
to vote against clean air, clean
water, and a healthy environment. When

363
00:36:22.239 --> 00:36:30.119
we return the Hunter Biden conviction and
just the general thought about whether justice is

364
00:36:30.280 --> 00:36:36.760
really served here next on the John
Girardi Show, Hunter Biden got convicted of

365
00:36:36.800 --> 00:36:43.519
his gun crimes, and there's this
attitude among Democrats of like, see how

366
00:36:43.639 --> 00:36:49.000
much better Joe Biden is than Donald
Trump. Here? Donald Trump is calling

367
00:36:49.119 --> 00:36:52.760
the judicial process rigged, and Joe
Biden did nothing to interfere with it.

368
00:36:52.840 --> 00:36:57.000
Joe Biden was clean and pure as
a wind driven Snow's see, there's no

369
00:36:57.159 --> 00:37:00.519
special treatment for the Biden's. He's
not pardoning his son, all right.

370
00:37:01.159 --> 00:37:06.960
And there's sort of this attitude that
Hunter Biden received fair justice, or even

371
00:37:07.079 --> 00:37:15.280
unfairly over zealous justice against himself.
Let's be real here, that is not

372
00:37:15.320 --> 00:37:22.800
true. The federal prosecutor in this
case tried with might and main to wipe

373
00:37:23.039 --> 00:37:29.920
all of Hunter Biden's crimes away.
They were pursuing a plea deal to the

374
00:37:29.960 --> 00:37:35.079
bitter end that would have reduced all
of Hunter's millions and millions and millions and

375
00:37:35.119 --> 00:37:37.199
millions of dollars of unpaid taxes,
his gun crimes, everything down to a

376
00:37:37.199 --> 00:37:42.760
couple of misdemeanors for which he wouldn't
do any jail time. And it was

377
00:37:42.800 --> 00:37:45.639
such a ridiculous deal that the judge, the federal judge in this case,

378
00:37:45.639 --> 00:37:52.880
shut it down. When that collapsed
and the prosecutor was revealed for being as

379
00:37:53.199 --> 00:37:58.039
wildly duplicitous as he was, he
was sort of forced then to file these

380
00:37:58.159 --> 00:38:01.559
gun charges against Hunter Biden, but
had the statute of limitations pass on some

381
00:38:01.599 --> 00:38:07.559
of his far more serious tax crimes. No, Hunter Biden did not really

382
00:38:07.599 --> 00:38:13.320
get totally fair justice here. He
deserved worse. That'll do it for John

383
00:38:13.280 --> 00:38:14.880
Girardi Show, See you next time
on Power Talk