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

141–150 of 178 posts

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

#141

Post by pdonis »

cocacola1 wrote: post #133
pdonis wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

If a city chooses to operate a water system, that’s still subject to the Fourteenth Amendment. The Fourteenth Amendment constrains state and local government action. And the Preamble's "general Welfare" is relevant interpretive context. At the Founding, that meant the safety, prosperity, happiness, and well being of the political community. So the question isn't whether the Constitution requires cities to provide wat…

The city is not a State. The Fourteenth Amendment says that States shall not abridge the privileges and immunities of citizens.

As the court's opinion points out (and as others have pointed out in this thread), there are plenty of other legal remedies that can be sought against a city government that allegedly poisons its people through its water system, including voting them out of office and bringing tort claims against them.

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

#142

Post by alexgieg »

jack_h wrote: post #84
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".

The second amendment is a pretty well articulated negative right in the same manner as the first or the fourth in the classical liberal school of thought. These are natural rights that individuals have and the bill of rights merely states that these are outside of the government’s sphere. The technology being used whether it be voicing your opinion on the internet, your house being secure from searches with thermal c…

Isn't lying about the fact there's lead in water and telling them it's safe to drink a way for a government to "deprive you of life"? I mean, if any such lie, plus the associated loss of life, is allowed, government officials can in theory engineer ways to get rid of people "without due process" while keeping themselves free of any consequence.

Also, doesn't the Preamble to the US Constitution say it was established by the People with, among others, the goal to "promote the general Welfare" of the people? How is the general welfare promoted by the government deliberately holding information on what they know is going to severely damage their welfare?

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

#144

Post by ceejayoz »

pdonis wrote: post #140
ceejayoz wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 t…

The city is not a State, so that clause would not apply to it. Unless you want to argue that the State of Mississippi was violating the Fourteenth Amendment by not requiring its cities to provide clean water (the article mentions that a few other states have done this). But this suit wasn't against the state.

> The city is not a State

Oh, come on.

This is tortured logic that would argue the Fourth Amendment doesn't apply to most police departments in the country and that town school boards could violate the First Amendment and have religious instruction.

States are co-sovereigns with the Feds. Your city is not. Your city's state cannot allow the local jurisdictions under it violate the Constitution either. Your town can't forbid black people from voting for mayor. etc. etc. etc.

For a concrete example:

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/390/474/

> Held: Local units with general governmental powers over an entire geographic area may not, consistently with the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, be apportioned among single member districts of substantially unequal population.

> The Equal Protection Clause reaches the exercise of state power, whether exercised by the State or a political subdivision.

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

#145

Post by ceejayoz »

pdonis wrote: post #138
ceejayoz wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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...

Incorporation of the Bill of Rights doesn't extend any powers granted by the Constitution to the Federal government, to state, county, city, etc. governments. It just says those governments (well, the State governments, since the Amendment only explicitly says "States", but other local governments when they are implementing or enforcing State statutes) also have to respect the Bill of Rights when they exercise the po…

> also have to respect the Bill of Rights

The Bill of Rights is just the first ten. Incorporation has been extended far further than that. Per the link:

"However, the post–Civil War era, beginning in 1865 with the Thirteenth Amendment, which declared the abolition of slavery, gave rise to the incorporation of other amendments, applying more rights to the states and people over time."

> The Constitution did not establish those other governments.

But it does constrain them. They agreed to that when they ratified the Constitution and joined the United States.

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

#146

Post by paulryanrogers »

tyjen wrote: post #23

Constitutional right? No. But, it's an abject failure of the local government overseeing the infrastructure to fix or solicit help to fix. Jackson, MS government failed. Targeting them on the grounds of a constitutional violation seems like borderline legal malpractice, but probably an unfortunate standard time wasting legal protocol, for lawyers to suggest this was a viable route to begin with.

Perhaps. Yet with this administration it seems victory in lower courts is hollow until challenged up to the Supreme Court. Which lately rules overwhelming in their favor. And in rare circumstances where the admin is rebuffed, like tariffs, they just work around it.

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

#147

Post by ceejayoz »

giantg2 wrote: post #105
eddythompson80 wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> It wouldn't have taken decades.

We've had vaccination/innoculation for centuries and people still don't accept it.

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

#148

Post by cocacola1 »

gruez wrote: post #135
cocacola1 wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 mig…

>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." You realize much of the constitution is designed to constrain what the government can do, exactly to limit the potential for abuse? Sure, it's all great when you're…

[flagged]

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

#149

Post by Brian_K_White »

Avicebron wrote: post #13

> He [judge] also said there was no constitutional right to “truthful information from officials during a public health crisis.” We should have "spirit of the law" courts. This is absurd.

Spirit of what law exactly? It is indeed absurd that anyone thinks the Constitution deals at this level at all. It's plain goofy.

The Constitution declares only your right to persue and defend your needs, not to provide them to you.

Sure, many bad wrongs were done by people who are guilty of any number of crimes or failures to perform duties in good faith or failures of integrity. They just aren't Constitutional issues.

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

#150

Post by cocacola1 »

pdonis wrote: post #141
cocacola1 wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If a city chooses to operate a water system, that’s still subject to the Fourteenth Amendment. The Fourteenth Amendment constrains state and local government action. And the Preamble's "general Welfare" is relevant interpretive context. At the Founding, that meant the safety, prosperity, happiness, and well being of the political community. So the question isn't whether the Constitution requires cities to provide wat…

The city is not a State. The Fourteenth Amendment says that States shall not abridge the privileges and immunities of citizens. As the court's opinion points out (and as others have pointed out in this thread), there are plenty of other legal remedies that can be sought against a city government that allegedly poisons its people through its water system, including voting them out of office and bringing tort claims ag…

A city is a state actor for Fourteenth Amendment purposes. The Supreme Court has applied the Fourteenth Amendment to municipal action since at least Yick Wo, and municipalities can be sued under §1983 for constitutional violations caused by official policy.

And "you can vote them out or sue in tort" doesn't answer the constitutional question. The availability of other remedies does not make an otherwise unconstitutional government action constitutional.

Also, the Fourteenth Amendment does considerably more than prohibit abridging privileges or immunities. It expressly prohibits states from depriving any person of life, liberty, or property without due process and from denying equal protection.

Post reply on HN