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

111–120 of 178 posts

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

#111

Post by pdonis »

cocacola1 wrote: post #101
pdonis wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

> The Fourteenth Amendment explicitly constrains states

It says states can't make laws that abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens. It does not say states have to provide whatever services citizens would like to have.

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

#112

Post by ceejayoz »

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 Constitution establishes the Federal government. Not state, county, city, municipal governments.

This is about a hundred years out of date.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incorporation_of_the_Bill_of_R...

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

#113

Post by rassimmoc »

rbanffy wrote: post #100
rassimmoc wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

not sure I understand what you are trying to say witht regard to my comment

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

#114

Post by ceejayoz »

pdonis wrote: post #111
cocacola1 wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

> The Fourteenth Amendment explicitly constrains states It says states can't make laws that abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens. It does not say states have to provide whatever services citizens would like to have.

It says several things, including this:

"nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law"

One might argue they're not required to provide water, but I'd argue this means they can't knowingly provide dangerous water laced with a neurotoxin and lie about its safety as in this case.

(And there's an "equal protection of the laws" aspect to "lead in the water supply tends to disproportionately occur in poor communities", too.)

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

#115

Post by db48x »

mullingitover wrote: post #75
eclipticplane wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 cas…

While I agree with most of that, this judgement does not absolve the government of anything. As the judgement explicitly states, the plaintiffs do still have legal claims against their local government even though they do not have a Constitutional claim.

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

#117

Post by rbanffy »

JuniperMesos wrote: post #82
mathisfun123 wrote: post #8

People don't read enough court decisions. Did you know you don't have a constitutional right to be protected by the police either https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Town_of_Castle_Rock_v._Gonzale... > the Court ruled, 7–2, that a town and its police department could not be sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for refusing to enforce a restraining order, even though the refusal led to the murders of a woman's three children by her…

If that court had ruled differently, people would absolutely be using that precedent to sue towns and police departments for not delivering illegal immigrants who came to the attention of the police department to ICE for deportation, if that illegal immigrant later killed someone.

That would actually make sense. It’s the police’s job to “serve and protect” and, if there was a likelihood a person would commit a crime and, knowing that, the police refused to act to prevent harm to the population, the police force should be held accountable for that.

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

#118

Post by giantg2 »

c6400sc wrote: post #56
giantg2 wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Yes, because germ theory was accepted immediately by the establishment. Oh wait, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contemporary_reaction_to_Ignaz...

And this predates by 20 years! Wonder how pastuer faired...

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

#119

Post by ceejayoz »

inglor_cz wrote: post #79
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.

> You cannot legally demand what physically is not there.

But you can demand what is provided to you by public utility isn't knowingly and secretly poisoned with a neurotoxin.

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

#120

Post by rbanffy »

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…

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

You’d need more luck than what seems to be available. Since one side is blatantly criminal and the other is somehow less criminal, electing successive governments from the less criminal side would be the best possible course.

Post reply on HN