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

71–80 of 178 posts

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

#71

Post by ceejayoz »

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…

> This is a nation built on negative rights.

I have a positive right to legal counsel, and trial by jury. We have, over the years, extended that to access to education and a wide variety of other items.

The Ninth Amendment exists in the Bill of Rights specifically to combat this misconception that the Constitution is an exhaustive list of the rights you possess.

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

#72

Post by candlewaxchewer »

ceejayoz wrote: post #52
hypeatei wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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)

> Machine guns are banned at the federal level, though… Semiautomatics, if you prefer. (And plenty of Second Amendment purists feel that limit is unconstitutional, and SCOTUS may well soon agree. As they just did with silencers - https://www.npr.org/2026/08/17/nx-s1-5935562/firearms-law-la... ) > I'm not sure I follow the argument anyway; the US constitution consists of negative rights (e.g. freedom to do something)…

The limit on machine guns is unconstitutional and most of the argument against ignore the ninth amendment (e.g founding fathers couldn’t imagine a weapon past the musket, therefor any weapon made after 1776 is illegal)

I doubt the ninth amendment applies to entitlements, as these are fundamentally different from liberties

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

#73

Post by pdonis »

cocacola1 wrote: post #54
ndriscoll wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That sentence just says why we're making a national government (i.e. giving up some of our rights). It does not create some unlimited requirement for governments (especially state) to do whatever they can to promote general welfare, whatever that means. It doesn't even grant unlimited authority to do so. Or really say anything at all except state a very general purpose for why a national government is a sensible thin…

I disagree. The Preamble explicitly states that the Constitution is for these six things. "in Order to" makes it clear what the ends of the document are, and what they’re meant to serve. That it doesn’t confer unlimited power is orthodox constitutional law. But the Preamble explicitly states the constitutional purposes that should guide the interpretation and exercise of the powers enumerated. And it doesn’t follow t…

> The Preamble explicitly states that the Constitution is for these six things.

The Constitution establishes the Federal government. Not state, county, city, municipal governments. It says what the Federal government is for. Not what those other levels of government are for. The Federal government isn't the government that failed to provide clean water in this case; it's not even responsible for providing city water in the first place, city governments are.

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

#74

Post by carefulfungi »

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?

In the sense that the law is expansive... probably? But...

There is a federal law requiring government officials provide "honest services" (the searchable phrase to learn more). The supreme court ruled it was too vague to be constitutional and restricted its enforcement to outright bribery (more or less).

In the US, the executive branch can lie to you. Deception is a common law enforcement tool, as an example. The military / CIA actively use false news and propaganda. Unless an official is under oath, consider they might be intentionally deceiving you. (And even then...)

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

#75

Post by mullingitover »

eclipticplane wrote: post #61
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.

What ordinary law requires officials to issue truthful statements? We're living in the era of unrestrained executive power.

> What ordinary law requires officials to issue truthful statements?

There are plenty of laws on the books against malfeasance in office. They go back to the freaking Code of Hammurabi. Proscriptions against "high crimes and misdemeanors" covers exactly this type of governance that willfully (or even negligently) brings harm.

Knowingly deceiving to the public in a way that causes them harm should be a no-brainer case for these laws. This judgment absolving the government is frankly an indictment of the judicial system.

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

#76

Post by ceejayoz »

candlewaxchewer wrote: post #72
ceejayoz wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Machine guns are banned at the federal level, though… Semiautomatics, if you prefer. (And plenty of Second Amendment purists feel that limit is unconstitutional, and SCOTUS may well soon agree. As they just did with silencers - https://www.npr.org/2026/08/17/nx-s1-5935562/firearms-law-la... ) > I'm not sure I follow the argument anyway; the US constitution consists of negative rights (e.g. freedom to do something)…

The limit on machine guns is unconstitutional and most of the argument against ignore the ninth amendment (e.g founding fathers couldn’t imagine a weapon past the musket, therefor any weapon made after 1776 is illegal) I doubt the ninth amendment applies to entitlements, as these are fundamentally different from liberties

> The limit on machine guns is unconstitutional

If so, the argument upthread about "well cholera" fails for similar reasons.

> I doubt the ninth amendment applies to entitlements, as these are fundamentally different from liberties

The Ninth Amendment doesn't use either term. Just rights. (Which I am, *ahem*, entitled to.)

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

#77

Post by cocacola1 »

gruez wrote: post #12
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.

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.

The Preamble isn't vague about what it's doing, though. It's quite clear. It tells us who is establishing the Constitution and expressly states the purposes for which they are establishing it.

Saying that those stated purposes should inform constitutional interpretation isn't a particularly novel idea. Pretending the ratified language at the beginning of the Constitution doesn't matter because taking it seriously might be inconvenient isn't a serious position either.

The possibility that judges can abuse constitutional interpretation is an argument for doing it carefully, not selectively. Or, as Joseph Story put it: "The circumstance, that so construed the power may be abused, is no answer. All powers may be abused."

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

#78

Post by AustinDev »

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".

>"the Second Amendment predates machine guns"

That statement is false. Repeating firearms like the Puckle gun predate the bill of rights by ~75 years.

More importantly, the Founders were hardly unfamiliar with privately owned military firepower. The Constitution expressly authorized Congress to grant letters of marque, and the government commissioned privateers to attack enemy shipping using their cannon-armed privately-owned warships.

If you want to change an amendment do it the correct way, repeal it.

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

#79

Post by inglor_cz »

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...

Slovenia is also a rainy country with lots of rivers and snow in the winter.

I am not sure how "right to water" would work in arid parts of the US. You cannot legally demand what physically is not there.

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

#80

Post by rassimmoc »

fakedang wrote: post #41
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, Fran…

Oh, I think GOP is nicely evolving US constitution with a little help from supreme court
Post reply on HN