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

101–110 of 178 posts

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

#101

Post by cocacola1 »

pdonis wrote: post #73
cocacola1 wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

The Fourteenth Amendment explicitly constrains states, and those constitutional restrictions apply to state and local government action.

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

#102

Post by giantg2 »

chrisux wrote: post #38
giantg2 wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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...

Things taking a year or two was normal, but 8 years is plenty of time. There were long distance publications in many areas of the world even earlier in time. You can look at how every back in the 1700s Benjamin Franklin had a newspaper across the US and routinely corresponded with Europe.

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

#103

Post by ceejayoz »

tzs wrote: post #92
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".

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 14…

> The 14th not covering clean water at the time it was written is not because they didn't have germ theory.

That was the legal theory upthread. Which I contest.

> Second, the 2nd is a lot clearer than the 14th.

"nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law" seems pretty clear, and I'm inclined to consider "intentionally providing contaminated water" to be a violation of it.

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

#104

Post by rbanffy »

delecti wrote: post #88
Frieren wrote: post #62

As a not American, why does freedom of speech include corporations giving money that are not citizens nor talking. But even that Congress has the power to spend "to provide for the common defence and general welfare" given by the constitution it still not a right to receive any of that. I have a feeling that there is a interpretation bias in favor of corporations over human life.

I think the first amendment quite reasonably protects people making donations to political causes. The "speech" protections aren't limited to literal vocalizations, but also applause, writing, displaying signs, etc. And it also protects assembly, and donating to a political organization is a reasonable part of joining or supporting a cause. It does not have to protect corporations making those same donations; congres…

> it'll be on the ballot this fall in Montana

There are reasons to be optimistic.

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

#105

Post by giantg2 »

eddythompson80 wrote: post #49
giantg2 wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 constitutiona…

It wouldn't have taken decades. Information might have taken a year or two. Decisions on what to do with that may take longer. I find it unlikely that germ theory wasn't known by those involved with the 14th amendment, even though it wasnt based on it.

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

#106

Post by ceejayoz »

AustinDev wrote: post #96
ceejayoz wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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

Vessels is a bit of an odd thing to focus on, frankly. I'm largely not allowed to own a fully armed tank, fighter jet, or howitzer.

(With a few strictly controlled exceptions; https://www.skiutah.com/blog/authors/lexi/last-gunners-the-c...)

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

#107

Post by rassimmoc »

delecti wrote: post #88
Frieren wrote: post #62

As a not American, why does freedom of speech include corporations giving money that are not citizens nor talking. But even that Congress has the power to spend "to provide for the common defence and general welfare" given by the constitution it still not a right to receive any of that. I have a feeling that there is a interpretation bias in favor of corporations over human life.

I think the first amendment quite reasonably protects people making donations to political causes. The "speech" protections aren't limited to literal vocalizations, but also applause, writing, displaying signs, etc. And it also protects assembly, and donating to a political organization is a reasonable part of joining or supporting a cause. It does not have to protect corporations making those same donations; congres…

Not from US and not a lawyer, but for me it makes sense for 'speech' to include writing, signs, etc... But not money. I think it should only include what every person has same of as every other person. We all can communicate, write, display signs,.... But not everyone can donate millions/billions

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

#108

Post by didgeoridoo »

Frieren wrote: post #62

As a not American, why does freedom of speech include corporations giving money that are not citizens nor talking. But even that Congress has the power to spend "to provide for the common defence and general welfare" given by the constitution it still not a right to receive any of that. I have a feeling that there is a interpretation bias in favor of corporations over human life.

Because without protection of collective speech, there is no principled way to protect the freedom of the press.

The Citizens United case affirmed that a private group could collectively spend money to produce and distribute a movie attacking Hillary Clinton during her campaign.

The problem is, if you want to stop those people from spending money to influence the outcome of elections, you must also forbid the New York Times from doing so. That means no investigative journalism, no exposés of candidates, no endorsements or political op-eds. Ink and paper cost money, and that money is spent by a corporation.

(And, if you succeed in letting newspapers have a regulatory carve-out, then all you’ve done is make them tasty acquisition targets for those same corporate interests you just tried to restrict.)

I think unlimited spending on political messaging has poisoned our politics and our culture, but I think that’s downstream of a lot of other factors — the loss of social cohesion, weakening of civil society and institutions, and the growth of federal power raising the stakes of elections. Restricting speech won’t solve these issues. I’m not sure what will.

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

#109

Post by ceejayoz »

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.

> fundamental rights can never depend on the work of other people

So public defenders and public school teachers aren't a thing? Jury duty can't be compelled? Conscription like in WWII?

Post reply on HN