Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

A Republic, if we can keep it

Part XIX: Environmental justice

People kayaking at sunset

It's time we enact a constitutional amendment guaranteering the right to clean air and clean water, writes Breslin.

Marco Bottigelli/Getty Images

Breslin is the Joseph C. Palamountain Jr. Chair of Political Science at Skidmore College and author of “A Constitution for the Living: Imagining How Five Generations of Americans Would Rewrite the Nation’s Fundamental Law.”

This is the latest in a series to assist American citizens on the bumpy road ahead this election year. By highlighting components, principles and stories of the Constitution, Breslin hopes to remind us that the American political experiment remains, in the words of Alexander Hamilton, the “most interesting in the world.”

Justice Louis Brandeis famously wrote, “a single courageous state may, if its citizens choose, serve as a laboratory; and try novel social and economic experiments without risk to the rest of the country.” The parable of the “state as democratic laboratory” was born that afternoon in March 1932.

Several states have taken Brandeis’ challenge seriously, especially in the environmental arena. Seven states, in fact — Hawaii, Illinois, Massachusetts, Montana, New York, Pennsylvania and Rhode Island — have embedded protections directly into their state constitutions. Four of those have gone so far as to enshrine fundamental rights to clean air and clean water, as well as a healthful environment right, into their bills of rights.


Take Montana’s Constitution, for example. Its Declaration of Rights insists, “All persons are born free and have certain inalienable rights. They include the right to a clean and healthful environment and the rights of pursuing life's basic necessities, enjoying and defending their lives and liberties, acquiring, possessing and protecting property, and seeking their safety, health and happiness in all lawful ways.”

Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter

Or Pennsylvania. Section 27 of the Commonwealth’s Constitution reads, “The people have a right to clean air, pure water, and to the preservation of the natural, scenic, historic and esthetic values of the environment. Pennsylvania's public natural resources are the common property of all the people, including generations yet to come. As trustee of these resources, the Commonwealth shall conserve and maintain them for the benefit of all the people.”

New York, the latest to enter the constitutional amendment sweepstakes, just altered its supreme law to read, “Each person shall have a right to clean air and water, and a healthful environment.” Other states are currently considering green amendments for their constitutional texts.

And yet the U.S. Constitution is silent on the environment. Efforts to amend the document to replicate the experimentation at the state level have all failed. Wisconsin Sen. Gaylord Nelson was rebuffed in the early 1970s when he proposed a constitutional amendment that would have ensured “every person has an inalienable right to a decent environment.” Twenty years later, a constitutional amendment was proposed that at least matched the linguistic style of our Bill of Rights: “The right of each person to clean and healthful air and water, and to the protection of the other natural resources of the nation, shall not be infringed upon by any person.” It too went down to defeat.

The time has come to resurrect these attempts, and to do so with a commitment to environmental justice.

It begins with constitutional language. While working on a book, I had the great good fortune to interview Michael Brune, executive director of the Sierra Club, America’s largest and most influential grassroots environmental organization. I asked him to imagine being a delegate to a fictional 2023 Constitutional Convention — a contemporary return to Philadelphia’s Independence Hall, so to speak. What would his ideal constitutional amendment protecting the environment look like? His response did not disappoint.

“Americans today face urgent national (and global) environmental challenges that would have been unimaginable to previous constitutional framers,” he began. “Past leaders worked tirelessly to improve our environmental station, but they didn’t fully connect their ambitions to the constitutional project. They didn’t see that America’s organic law holds the possibility of real reform.”

“Our task,” he implored, “is to leverage the power of the constitutional text for the future of our planet.”

He then gave me what I ultimately asked for: proposed language for a constitutional amendment. Two concise sentences said it all: “The right of the people to clean air and water, and to the preservation of a safe and healthy environment, shall not be infringed. The public natural resources of the United States of America are the common property of all the people, including future generations, and shall be preserved and maintained for the benefit of all.”

Our chances of forming “a more perfect union” would be enhanced with Brune’s proposed amendment.

But constitutional language is not enough. Environmental justice requires a bit more, namely representation by all constituencies at the decision-making table, transparent and accessible planning processes, and equitable distribution of benefits and impacts across all communities. Thus far, environmental efforts have tended to favor the privileged, while negative impacts have disproportionately affected the marginalized. That has to change along with constitutional clauses.

States are donning their lab coats. It’s early, but promising signs point to state action aimed at fostering environmental justice. California, Maryland and Washington are at the forefront of fair and equitable treatment. More than a dozen states have established “environmental justice bodies” to focus on environmental pressures “in overburdened communities.” More than two dozen states now mandate that “environmental justice considerations be integrated into legislative and regulatory action.”

President Joe Biden has created the White House Environmental Justice Advisory Council. His Justice40 initiative is particularly encouraging. But the federal government still lags far behind the states in experimenting with environmental efforts. A constitutional amendment that safeguards a healthful environment for all would exemplify the courage Louis Brandeis urged. Thanks to folks like Michael Brune, the language is there. What’s missing is the will.

Read More

Congress Bill Spotlight: BIG OIL from the Cabinet Act

Three blocks labeled "environmental", "social", and "governance" in front of a globe.

Getty Images, Khanchit Khirisutchalual

Congress Bill Spotlight: BIG OIL from the Cabinet Act

The Fulcrum introduces Congress Bill Spotlight, a weekly report by Jesse Rifkin, focusing on the noteworthy legislation of the thousands introduced in Congress. Rifkin has written about Congress for years, and now he's dissecting the most interesting bills you need to know about, but that often don't get the right news coverage.

Trump’s nomination of fossil fuel executive Chris Wright as Energy Secretary inspired this Democratic bill.

Keep ReadingShow less
The American Government’s People Problem
Yellen puts Congress on notice over impending debt default date: 5 essential reads on what’s at stake
Photo by Andy Feliciotti on Unsplash

The American Government’s People Problem

The President of the United States should be competent, ethical, and full of vigor. This is obvious given the demands of the job. Yet former President Joe Biden, who’s 82 years old, didn’t run for reelection over concerns about his mental facilities. And current president Donald Trump, himself 78, actively tried to reverse the previous election.

Is this really the best we can do for America’s top job?

Keep ReadingShow less
Just the Facts: Trade Deficits

Businessman grabs the head concept with business chart on scoreboard

Getty Images//Witthaya Prasongsin

Just the Facts: Trade Deficits

The Fulcrum strives to approach news stories with an open mind and skepticism, striving to present our readers with a broad spectrum of viewpoints through diligent research and critical thinking. As best we can, remove personal bias from our reporting and seek a variety of perspectives in both our news gathering and selection of opinion pieces.

However, before our readers can analyze varying viewpoints, they must have the facts.

Keep ReadingShow less
Support for Mass Deportation Drops Well Below Half as People Consider Other Options

Sharon Aguilera, 27, from Indiana, gathers with protestors on Highland Avenue in National City, San Diego County, on January 31, 2025, to demonstrate against anti-immigrant policies towards Mexicans living and working in the US and San Diego.

(Photo by Carlos Moreno/NurPhoto via Getty Images)

Support for Mass Deportation Drops Well Below Half as People Consider Other Options

Polling on what to do with undocumented immigrants in the US has found seemingly contradictory results. When mass deportation is asked about by itself, some polls have found slight majority support. But that is not Americans’ preferred solution. When given another option – a path to citizenship – a substantially larger majority chooses that over mass deportation. Also, as people get more information about both options, support for mass deportation drops – to as low as a one-in-four.

Americans are clearly concerned about the number of undocumented immigrants, and when the only option they are given to address that problem is mass deportation, a majority may go along with it. For example, a September 2024 poll, which asked whether they favor “the mass deportation of undocumented immigrants,” found a small majority of 54% support. (Ipsos/Scripps News) A more recent poll that asked the same question found the public divided 49% to 49%. (NPR/PBS News/Marist, January 2025)

Keep ReadingShow less