Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

No constitutional right to clean water, federal court finds

usatoday.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 178 posts

Re: No constitutional right to clean water, federal court finds

#31

Post by tzs »

ceejayoz wrote: post #16
tzs wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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!)

At most that will just get it dismissed against some individual plaintiffs. It won't affect their case against the city and any companies such as the engineering firm that was a defendant in this particular lawsuit.

Re: No constitutional right to clean water, federal court finds

#32

Post by db48x »

Avicebron wrote: post #21
db48x wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I completely disagree. Not everything can be included in the Constitution. We have ordinary laws to address things like this.

Never once tried to argue that it should be included in the Constitution. I suppose one of those "other laws" will cover when the government deliberately gives people lead poisoning? I wonder why they didn't go with that one...

You literally just did.

Re: No constitutional right to clean water, federal court finds

#33

Post by chermi »

cocacola1 wrote: post #4

This 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.

If that was taken as valid justification for government intervention, why not just elect a king that promises to be do "good" things?

Re: No constitutional right to clean water, federal court finds

#34

Post by dguest »

It's interesting how a lot of newer countries just put the right to water directly in the constitution. South Africa says some stuff about the government having an obligation toward "progressive realization" of the goal [1], whereas Slovenia just straight says water is a right [2].

[1]: https://www.gov.za/documents/constitution/chapter-2-bill-rig...

[2]: https://www.uradni-list.si/glasilo-uradni-list-rs/vsebina/12...

Re: No constitutional right to clean water, federal court finds

#35

Post by chermi »

giantg2 wrote: post #30
chermi wrote: post #26

Yes? Why would there be? This is a nation built on negative rights. If you pay taxes/fees to some institution for a service and the the institution fails to provide it, that's already covered by some contract law, no? I know this will be read as me saying they shouldn't have clean water. What I'm saying is that declaring a positive right is not an effective approach to satisfying that right in this country, or anywhe…

It should just be criminal reckless endangerment since they knowingly provided unsafe water.

[flagged]

Re: No constitutional right to clean water, federal court finds

#36

Post by light_hue_1 »

As usual a split decision along party lines. The entire US judicial system has lost its mind.

It's clear at this point that judges pick the outcome they want then find ways to interpret the case, precedent, etc. to fit. You can see it in the dissent here. https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/24/24-60370-CV1.pd...

Hard to see where we go from here as a society where arbitrary laws that bind us all are essentially written on the fly by whatever judges happen to be in the Supreme Court, circuit courts, state courts, etc.

How is it possible to have a democracy under these conditions?

Re: No constitutional right to clean water, federal court finds

#37

Post by ceejayoz »

tzs wrote: post #31
ceejayoz wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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!)

At most that will just get it dismissed against some individual plaintiffs. It won't affect their case against the city and any companies such as the engineering firm that was a defendant in this particular lawsuit.

> It won't affect their case against the city…

Which again, if they win, they pay for!

It'll come out of their taxes, which the city will either have to raise, or cut costs somewhere to pay for. The people responsible will be neither criminally nor civilly liable, leaving zero disincentive to others.

Re: No constitutional right to clean water, federal court finds

#38

Post by chrisux »

giantg2 wrote: post #27
ceejayoz wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That'd require them explaining why "the 14th Amendment predates germ theory" is a reasonable argument but not "the Second Amendment predates machine guns".

Germ theory really started around 1860 and the 14th amendment was 1868. Seems they both coexisted.

They didn't have the internet back then bro, information moved much slower. Governments (USA Included) tend to move much slower than tech.

Germ Theory starting -only- 8 years prior doesn't really mean much here...

Re: No constitutional right to clean water, federal court finds

#39

Post by georgemcbay »

helsinkiandrew wrote: post #3

> alleged that the city knowingly allowed residents to drink unsafe water. Surely knowingly letting people drink lead contaminated water breaks other laws rather than their constitutional rights?

> Surely knowingly letting people drink lead contaminated water breaks other laws rather than their constitutional rights?

The legality of poisoning people with toxic water in the US seems to depend upon how black they are (based on clear patterns of where this is allowed to happen).

Re: No constitutional right to clean water, federal court finds

#40

Post by psunavy03 »

ceejayoz wrote: post #24
_--__--__ wrote: post #19

This 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 r…

That'd require them explaining why "the 14th Amendment predates germ theory" is a reasonable argument but not "the Second Amendment predates machine guns".

So do you or do you not believe the First Amendment protects speech on this website? Or does it only protect quill pens and moveable type printing presses?
Post reply on HN