You Don't Have a Right to Safe Drinking Water, US Court Rules • Hacker News Board

Re: You Don't Have a Right to Safe Drinking Water, US Court Rules

#51

Post by ButlerianJihad » Sun, Sep 06, 2026, 10:34 AM UTC

passwordreset wrote: post #13

randyrand wrote: post #2

I'm not sure what a right to water really means. A lot of rural cities don't even provide water. People have wells and you pay for them yourself.

I think it's covered under that "right to life" section of the Constitution. Deliberately poisoning people through their water supply seems like a sure-fire way to deny the right to life of your citizens.

> that "right to life" section of the Constitution

The US Constitution? Perhaps you are thinking of the Declaration of Independence?

Or the Fifth Amendment, formulating it in the negative: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fifth_Amendment_to_the_United_...

I believe it is important for us to consider where rights derive from. The Constitution and Bill of Rights are designed to protect rights that humans already have ("endowed by their Creator") and prevent the government from taking them away, or infringing on them. The law can grant ordinary civil rights, above and beyond intrinsic human rights, but if the Constitution isn't protecting the latter, then there is a problem.

Re: You Don't Have a Right to Safe Drinking Water, US Court Rules

#52

Post by pvaldes » Sun, Sep 06, 2026, 10:35 AM UTC

dotancohen wrote: post #43

noja wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why is someone who wants non-contaminated drinking water incompetent?

Not everything you want - or need - is a right. And establishing a new right is not the only way to get what you want or need.

The authorities assuring that the drinking water that is sold to you is really of drinking water grade is the most basic of the basic rights. Not a luxury. The "right to culture almonds" or to have a pool is a different question.

Re: You Don't Have a Right to Safe Drinking Water, US Court Rules

#53

Post by embedding-shape » Sun, Sep 06, 2026, 10:38 AM UTC

dotancohen wrote: post #43

noja wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why is someone who wants non-contaminated drinking water incompetent?

Not everything you want - or need - is a right. And establishing a new right is not the only way to get what you want or need.

> Not everything you want - or need - is a right.

Ok, agreed. But safe drinking water, should maybe be one of the exceptions?

> And establishing a new right is not the only way to get what you want or need.

What's a better way to guarantee safe drinking water to everyone?

Re: You Don't Have a Right to Safe Drinking Water, US Court Rules

#54

Post by kstrauser » Sun, Sep 06, 2026, 10:38 AM UTC

Smaug123 wrote: post #5

Misleadingly provocative headline, right? The actual ruling from the article is that the US Constitution does not by itself grant US citizens that right. As the article itself points out, there’s nothing stopping other agreements from granting the right, and indeed several states do so explicitly.

The US Constitution, by itself, grants US citizens everything as a right, then enumerates the exceptions to those all-encompassing rights carved out as necessary for the operation of a government.

The correct question is: Where does the US Constitution grant governments the power to poison and lie to residents?

This isn’t some pedantry but fundamental American civics. The US Constitution explicitly does not enumerate rights. It’s default-allow, explicit-deny regarding human rights. It’s rather alarming that anyone would think it’s default-deny, explicit-allow. That’s not how the Constitution is written.

Re: You Don't Have a Right to Safe Drinking Water, US Court Rules

#55

Post by noja » Sun, Sep 06, 2026, 10:39 AM UTC

dotancohen wrote: post #43

noja wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why is someone who wants non-contaminated drinking water incompetent?

Not everything you want - or need - is a right. And establishing a new right is not the only way to get what you want or need.

What is drinking water for then, if not for drinking?

Re: You Don't Have a Right to Safe Drinking Water, US Court Rules

#56

Post by JuniperMesos » Sun, Sep 06, 2026, 10:39 AM UTC

klawed wrote: post #49

quotemstr wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"We"? Yeah, okay, Your Highness. As for the content: the law says what it says. Where in the constitution of the United States of America and its amendments does it say that a state government must be truthful about public health statements? The law says what it says. A behavior might be rotten, evil, illegal under other documents, and an all-round bad idea and still not a violation of, in particular, the constitutio…

The gp points out that some states, (for example, Massachusetts) opt to put this in their own constitutions

But not Mississippi evidently, or the court probably would've mentioned that and Mother Jones reporter Sophie Hurwitz would've mentioned that in the article. Maybe Mississippi should enact some kind of state constitutional provision asserting this, but they haven't.

Re: You Don't Have a Right to Safe Drinking Water, US Court Rules

#57

Post by thrance » Sun, Sep 06, 2026, 10:40 AM UTC

dotancohen wrote: post #43

noja wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why is someone who wants non-contaminated drinking water incompetent?

Not everything you want - or need - is a right. And establishing a new right is not the only way to get what you want or need.

You're not making an argument there. The people, through the government, chooses what is a right and what isn't. Not you alone. Clean drinking water seems pretty fucking important to me, and to a lot of other people too, it seems.

Re: You Don't Have a Right to Safe Drinking Water, US Court Rules

#58

Post by lampe3 » Sun, Sep 06, 2026, 10:40 AM UTC

Crazy that the comments are about the title and the how the legal system should work or does not work but no one cares if the water they need to survive is drinkable or not.

I am out of words for this comment section.

Re: You Don't Have a Right to Safe Drinking Water, US Court Rules

#59

Post by raverbashing » Sun, Sep 06, 2026, 10:41 AM UTC

stuartjohnson12 wrote: post #46

dotancohen wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not everything you want - or need - is a right. And establishing a new right is not the only way to get what you want or need.

I am absolutely mindboggled at the idea that you think the US should not guarantee safe drinking water everywhere for everyone. Unless this comment is pedantic legal snark.

Guarantee of safe water is a right (as given by EPA regulations, etc)

But it is not a constitutional right

Because putting it where it doesn't belong, without any quantification, is meaningless

Re: You Don't Have a Right to Safe Drinking Water, US Court Rules

#60

Post by JuniperMesos » Sun, Sep 06, 2026, 10:42 AM UTC

kstrauser wrote: post #54

Smaug123 wrote: post #5

Misleadingly provocative headline, right? The actual ruling from the article is that the US Constitution does not by itself grant US citizens that right. As the article itself points out, there’s nothing stopping other agreements from granting the right, and indeed several states do so explicitly.

The US Constitution, by itself, grants US citizens everything as a right, then enumerates the exceptions to those all-encompassing rights carved out as necessary for the operation of a government. The correct question is: Where does the US Constitution grant governments the power to poison and lie to residents? This isn’t some pedantry but fundamental American civics. The US Constitution explicitly does not enumerate…

By this logic, state employees and elected officials, who are themselves US citizens, have the right to say anything at all to the public, including blatant lies about public health issues, because there's no specific legal exception banning them from doing so.