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

41–50 of 178 posts

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

#41

Post by fakedang »

dguest wrote: post #34

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...

The problem with the US is Americans treating their Constitution like some kind of Bible, untouchable and beyond reproach, when in reality it should have been a constantly evolving document.

South Africa has one of the best constitutions in the world on paper because the authors very recently had to reconcile with and forgo their apartheid past. And they had a number of templates to adapt from, including the US, France, Germany, India, etc. Older countries tend to have shittier constitutions.

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

#42

Post by bryanrasmussen »

well first off, nobody asked for a constitutional right to clean water, what the court said was that not providing clean water did not violate rights to bodily integrity under due process.

Furthermore they said lying and saying the water was clean was fine because "there was no constitutional right to “truthful information from officials during a public health crisis.”"

which is a stupid statement because everybody knows there is no such constitutional right, the question would be if not giving truthful information during a health crisis could violate some constitutional right.

I would have dug to see if they told somebody with money and power, hey don't drink that water because then that would violate equal protections (or at least that's what I would argue), but since nobody went there maybe it's not quite as sure a proposition as I would suppose.

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

#43

Post by Zigurd »

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?

It seems nonsensical that the government could have the power to lie to and defraud the people while poisoning them. That just renders other rights meaningless.

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

#44

Post by tempaccountabcd »

chermi wrote: post #33
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?

[dead]

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

#45

Post by flufluflufluffy »

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?

If there was documented, provable harm done to the residents from the lead poisoning (not saying there isn’t, I just don’t know), they could surely win a civil case claiming negligence by the city and/or water treatment facilities/etc… There may also be laws or regulations in Jackson or Mississippi that were broken. Perhaps there aren’t, but there maybe should be. Which are all points brought up by Engelhardt:

> The Constitution does not provide redress for every governmental wrongdoing. 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. And Plaintiffs have not been left to go at it alone. The State of Mississippi and federal government have worked for years, and continue today, to improve the City of Jackson’s drinking water quality through regulations, investigations, and compliance plans. These already-established-and-undertaken avenues are the proper course for rectifying the lead contamination. We will not expand the Fourteenth Amendment to create novel theories of constitutional liability.

And now people who don’t take the time to actually read, or just can’t understand, are gonna be yelling and screaming about how the courts are corrupt, etc… (some courts may very well be corrupt! But this would not be a good example why).

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

#46

Post by ceejayoz »

psunavy03 wrote: post #40
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".

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?

> So do you or do you not believe the First Amendment protects speech on this website?

From the government, yes. From @dang, no.

Similarly, I think it's a clear Constitutional violation for a city government to knowingly give people lead poisoning.

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

#47

Post by Zigurd »

dguest wrote: post #34

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...

Sometimes the comparison can't be made directly because the US Constitution embodies the concept of unenumerated rights.

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

#48

Post by hypeatei »

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".

Machine guns are banned at the federal level, though, and it's been consistently upheld by the courts. I'm not sure I follow the argument anyway; the US constitution consists of negative rights (e.g. freedom to do something) rather than positive rights (e.g. entitlements)

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

#49

Post by eddythompson80 »

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.

Germ theory originated in Europe and it took a couple of decades before the knowledge transfer made it to the US and started getting accepted. It took a while for it to be come generally accepted in Europe too. I'm hazy on the exact dates, but even accepting the 1860 date, it's far too close to 1868 to assume politicians and the general public in the US (or even in Europe in 8 years) would have passed a constitutional amendment with full acceptance or understanding of germ theory.

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

#50

Post by dnautics »

Zigurd wrote: post #43
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?

It seems nonsensical that the government could have the power to lie to and defraud the people while poisoning them. That just renders other rights meaningless.

sure, but that's not the 14th amendment. Maybe the guarantee clause. It MIGHT touch the 14th amendment via incorporation. That's not what the attorneys argued.
Post reply on HN