Government officials allowing this to happen should be sentenced to acute lead poisoning.
Good chance that's how they got this way.
No constitutional right to clean water, federal court finds
11–20 of 178 posts
Re: No constitutional right to clean water, federal court finds
#12This seems to fall under the whole “promote the general welfare” part of the Preamble of the Constitution, though perhaps the court is unaware of it.
Give how vague constitutional clauses have been (ab)used to sneak in legislation through the judicial system (eg. roe v wade, or louisiana v. callais), the last thing we need are even more avenues to sue the government just because the plaintiff doesn't think the government is acting in the way they think is best.
Re: No constitutional right to clean water, federal court finds
#13> He [judge] also said there was no constitutional right to “truthful information from officials during a public health crisis.”
We should have "spirit of the law" courts. This is absurd.
Re: No constitutional right to clean water, federal court finds
#14> In the majority decision, Judge Kurt Engelhardt wrote that while the deprivation of clean water was “grievous,” it did “not infringe upon any deeply rooted constitutional right.” “We are skeptical that the right to not be harmed by lead-contaminated water fits within the right to bodily integrity, and Plaintiffs point us to no historical tradition or Supreme Court precedent convincing us,” he wrote.
The Ninth Amendment: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
It's the Fifth Circuit, so I'm not shocked they haven't heard of it.
I strongly suspect the Fifth Circuit would considered their bodily integrity to have been impinged upon if someone snuck lead into their drinks.
Re: No constitutional right to clean water, federal court finds
#15> Rather, he said residents should take other paths to redress, including electing better representatives and petitioning the government for remedies. Is suing the government not essentially a petition for remedies? How else do you get the gov to listen?
The article left off part of part of what the court said, which was (emphasis added):
> Rather, the remedy for Plaintiffs’ injuries lies in pursuing tort claims, electing representatives who will better manage the public-water system, and petitioning their representatives for other remedies.
Suing the government is indeed one of the things the court said they could do. They just can't sue alleging a violation of the particular federal statute they used in this suit.
Re: No constitutional right to clean water, federal court finds
#16> Rather, he said residents should take other paths to redress, including electing better representatives and petitioning the government for remedies. Is suing the government not essentially a petition for remedies? How else do you get the gov to listen?
The article left off part of part of what the court said, which was (emphasis added): > Rather, the remedy for Plaintiffs’ injuries lies in pursuing tort claims , electing representatives who will better manage the public-water system, and petitioning their representatives for other remedies. Suing the government is indeed one of the things the court said they could do. They just can't sue alleging a violation of the…
> pursuing tort claims
Which certainly won't get thrown out over qualified immunity.
(And if they win a case against the city, it's coming out of their own pockets!)
Re: No constitutional right to clean water, federal court finds
#17[dead]
Re: No constitutional right to clean water, federal court finds
#18The court ruling is here [1]. While this article is way better than the one from yesterday, it does have some big problems.
Better to just take a look at the ruling itself. Note that it contains two opinions. First is the majority opinion, joined be 10 judges on the 15 judge panel. Then is an opinion joined by 5 judges that dissents in part and concurs in part.
[1] https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/24/24-60370-CV1.pd...
Re: No constitutional right to clean water, federal court finds
#19This ruling seems obviously correct to me? The plaintiffs claimed this was a 14th amendment issue, but at the time the 14th was added cholera outbreaks were still somewhat common in the US and there was no remote notion of safe drinking water provided universally by municipal governments.
Hopefully there is some other legal redress under a different law or EPA regulation, but the courts can't just give in to faulty reasoning like that because people were wronged by the government.
Re: No constitutional right to clean water, federal court finds
#20> He [judge] also said there was no constitutional right to “truthful information from officials during a public health crisis.” We should have "spirit of the law" courts. This is absurd.
I completely disagree. Not everything can be included in the Constitution. We have ordinary laws to address things like this.