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

91–100 of 178 posts

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

#91

Post by Brian_K_White »

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 14th does not predate germ theory.

The 2nd does not predate machine guns.

The 1st does predate the internet.

And none of these matter because the Constitution deals in principles not details.

"This guy was killed with a laser but the law against murder was written after clubs but predates lasers, so it doesn't apply and you can't call this a murder."

The ruling sounds correct to me but not because of anything to do with the date that any part of the constitution or ammendment was written.

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

#92

Post by tzs »

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".

That makes no sense. The 14th not covering clean water at the time it was written is not because they didn't have germ theory.

The comparison to the 2nd also makes no sense. First, machine guns come up in arguments about reducing the scope of the 2nd whereas the argument here is about expanding the scope of the 14th.

Second, the 2nd is a lot clearer than the 14th. Pretty much every concrete right we get out of the 14th is either something that is inferred from it being generally recognized as an unstated right by the time the 14th was passed or has been found by arguing that it is implicit in the other more explicit rights (e.g., right to privacy as something you have to have to make some of the more explicit rights meaningful).

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

#93

Post by chermi »

ceejayoz wrote: post #71
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.

"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

Still sounds like negative framing to me. And when those implicit non-declared rights are judged legally, they are still judged in a negative rights lens, no?

The right to legal counsel and jury are protections are still defensive in framing, though I concede your point. Access to education I would also concede is partially positive though you see it is about not denying. I would also say the more recent positive-sounding rights declarations/rulings are not always on super solid grounds, but this is admittedly circular.

I stand by my claim of "built on".

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

#94

Post by _DeadFred_ »

light_hue_1 wrote: post #36

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…

[dead]

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

#95

Post by rassimmoc »

bradley13 wrote: post #51

Correct. You may demand clean water from your local government, in return for taxes, but it isn't any sort of basic right. And certainly is not mentioned in the US Constitution. Much like food or medical care: fundamental rights can never depend on the work of other people. Otherwise you can demand that work, which imposes on their rights.

what a nonsense.

Is 2nd amendment forcing anyone to make guns? Is US hiding population of enslaved workers that are forced to dig up metal, work it, make guns and sell them?

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

#96

Post by AustinDev »

ceejayoz wrote: post #83
AustinDev wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>"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 privat…

> The Constitution expressly authorized Congress to grant letters of marque… the government commissioned privateers... So Congress had a certain level of... control? Over guns?

I know you're an idealogical zealot but, for anyone else reading.

I do find it interesting that the only laws I can find limiting the arming of private vessels were with respect to arming them and then sending them off to fight in foreign wars.[1]

[1] Neutrality Act of 1794, §§3–4, 1 Stat. 381, 383

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

#97

Post by rbanffy »

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.

> unrestrained executive power.

I don’t think any of the branches have adequate restraints at this point.

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

#98

Post by adipose »

bradley13 wrote: post #51

Correct. You may demand clean water from your local government, in return for taxes, but it isn't any sort of basic right. And certainly is not mentioned in the US Constitution. Much like food or medical care: fundamental rights can never depend on the work of other people. Otherwise you can demand that work, which imposes on their rights.

Huh?

Something being a "right" doesn't mean it's a magical force that overrides all others. Rights are always in tension with other rights. A society deciding something is a "right" is a statement about priorities and values.

On the medical care example, most countries have something like the US's EMTALA -- not a Constitutional right but but a de facto "right to medical care" in emergency rooms and some other carve-outs.

But the fundamental right to medical care this codifies doesn't just override all other things. You'll get rightfully and legally-correctly turned away from an ER if you are extremely violent and belligerent, and cannot be reasonably stabilized enough for everyone else in the ER to be safe. If you're in a remote area and need a airlift, but the weather conditions are not reasonably safe for the only helicopter crew available -- as determined by themselves -- then they're not obligated to rescue you, either morally or legally.

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

#99

Post by rbanffy »

iamEAP wrote: post #86
bradley13 wrote: post #51

Correct. You may demand clean water from your local government, in return for taxes, but it isn't any sort of basic right. And certainly is not mentioned in the US Constitution. Much like food or medical care: fundamental rights can never depend on the work of other people. Otherwise you can demand that work, which imposes on their rights.

Access to clean water may not be enshrined in the US constitution, but it’s not accurate to say it’s not “any sort of basic right.” It’s enshrined explicitly as such in a variety of UN documents and EU laws and instruments. I wish more of my fellow Americans had a better idea of what fundamental rights the US has chosen not integrate into domestic law over the past 8 or so decades.

I might be mistaken, but when an international treaty is ratified, it has the same weight as a constitutional amendment. I’m sure the US ratified something around those lines.

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

#100

Post by rbanffy »

rassimmoc wrote: post #95
bradley13 wrote: post #51

Correct. You may demand clean water from your local government, in return for taxes, but it isn't any sort of basic right. And certainly is not mentioned in the US Constitution. Much like food or medical care: fundamental rights can never depend on the work of other people. Otherwise you can demand that work, which imposes on their rights.

what a nonsense. Is 2nd amendment forcing anyone to make guns? Is US hiding population of enslaved workers that are forced to dig up metal, work it, make guns and sell them?

I don’t think that many Americans would keep their jobs if it were not for the threat of abject poverty looming over their heads.
Post reply on HN