Montana's Green Promise: A Messy Path

Montana's constitution has some big promises about the environment. But those promises are so vague that they're causing more problems than they solve. People are suing the state, saying new laws break the constitution's guarantee of a "clean and healthful environment. " But what does that even mean? The constitution was written in 1972, and some parts are pretty clear. It talks about rights like free speech and religion. But other parts are a mess. For example, it says everyone has a right to "pursue life's basic necessities. " But what counts as a basic necessity? Is a car one in rural Montana? What about in Missoula, where there's public transport? The environment part is just as confusing. The constitution says everyone should keep Montana clean and healthy. But how? Does that mean people have to spend their free time cleaning up roadsides or fixing pollution? That sounds like forced labor, which is not a good look.And here's another problem: some rights in the constitution seem to fight each other. For example, if a car is a basic necessity, but driving it pollutes the environment, which right wins? The constitution doesn't say. Back when the constitution was being debated, people worried about these issues. The people in charge said not to worry, the legislature would figure it out. But after the constitution passed, the courts started making their own rules. That's how the plaintiffs won their case. This is why some people think Montana needs a new constitution. The current one is causing more confusion than it's solving. And in a democracy, shouldn't the people and their representatives make the rules, not the courts?