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

171–178 of 178 posts

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

#171

Post by db48x »

rassimmoc wrote: post #107
delecti wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Take heart in the fact that spending more money does not guarantee a win. The Harris campaign spent over a billion dollars in 2024 and she lost badly. She spent more than 2.5× as much as Trump.

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

#172

Post by Frieren »

db48x wrote: post #170
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.

People in the USA have both the right speak as they wish and to associate amongst themselves freely for any lawful purpose. A corporation is nothing more than a group of people who are associating with each other. If one person acting alone has a right to speak, how can that same right be denied to a group who have decided to speak together? And since “speech” in this context has always been interpreted to mean any a…

> how can that same right be denied to a group who have decided to speak together?

Corporations are not people nor behave like individuals. Money is not speech.

> “speech” in this context has always been interpreted to mean any act by which a message is conveyed to other people

Like a bullet? That explains the high murder rate in the USA. Your argument makes no sense and only works if one does not think too much about it.

> has always been interpreted

Saying that it has always been like that does not make it so. Because it was not.

It has always been agreed by everybody that corporations do not have a right to free speech only individual citizens have it.

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

#173

Post by ceejayoz »

tzs wrote: post #167
ceejayoz wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 violatio…

>> 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. Who argued that?

> 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.

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

#174

Post by ceejayoz »

db48x wrote: post #160
tavavex wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This was true at some point in history, but not now. It's been 34 years since the last constitutional amendment in the US, 55 years since the last successful proposal. And arguably almost the last hundred or so years of their amendments are minor, the heavy-hitters that everyone quotes and sees as truly changing the direction of the country are all from the 18th and 19th centuries. There will probably be no more amen…

Surely you would expect the rate of change to drop off after a time, right? The Constitution is not a very long document, so it cannot contain an infinite number of errors. At some point they’ll all be fixed and then no more evolution will be required. There have been some amendments that corrected omissions from the Constitution, but I don’t see how there could be an infinite number of those either. And I don’t see…

> Surely you would expect the rate of change to drop off after a time, right?

Why would you expect that, when societal change historically accelerates over time?

> The process for amending the Constitution hasn’t changed any.

In the sense that walking to work didn't change when people moved to the suburbs.

Jefferson wrote on this: https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Madison/01-12-02-024...

"On similar ground it may be proved that no society can make a perpetual constitution, or even a perpetual law. The earth belongs always to the living generation. They may manage it then, & what proceeds from it, as they please, during their usufruct. They are masters too of their own persons, & consequently may govern them as they please. But persons & property make the sum of the objects of government. The constitution and the laws of their predecessors extinguished then in their natural course, with those who gave them being. This could preserve that being till it ceased to be itself, & no longer. Every constitution then, & every law, naturally expires at the end of 19 years. If it be enforced longer, it is an act of force, & not of right. It may be said that the succeeding generation exercising in fact the power of repeal, this leaves them as free as if the constitution or law had been expressly limited to 19 years only. In the first place, this objection admits the right, in proposing an equivalent. But the power of repeal is not an equivalent. It might be indeed if every form of government were so perfectly contrived that the will of the majority could always be obtained fairly & without impediment. But this is true of no form. The people cannot assemble themselves. Their representation is unequal & vicious. Various checks are opposed to every legislative proposition. Factions get possession of the public councils. Bribery corrupts them. Personal interests lead them astray from the general interests of their constituents: and other impediments arise so as to prove to every practical man that a law of limited duration is much more manageable than one which needs a repeal."

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

#175

Post by rbanffy »

iamEAP wrote: post #168
rbanffy wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It is unfortunately not that straightforward in the case of the US. For example, the ICCPR was ratified by the US, but declared “not self-executing.” The ICESCR was never ratified.

Well... The US has been getting away with all sorts of shenanigans for the past century. I think it's time to grow up and behave like an adult country.

Which won't happen until it has an adult president, but that's a different story.

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

#176

Post by roryirvine »

db48x wrote: post #160
tavavex wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This was true at some point in history, but not now. It's been 34 years since the last constitutional amendment in the US, 55 years since the last successful proposal. And arguably almost the last hundred or so years of their amendments are minor, the heavy-hitters that everyone quotes and sees as truly changing the direction of the country are all from the 18th and 19th centuries. There will probably be no more amen…

Surely you would expect the rate of change to drop off after a time, right? The Constitution is not a very long document, so it cannot contain an infinite number of errors. At some point they’ll all be fixed and then no more evolution will be required. There have been some amendments that corrected omissions from the Constitution, but I don’t see how there could be an infinite number of those either. And I don’t see…

France has had 11 amendments to its constitution in the 21st century, South Africa and Ireland have had 13 each, Germany has had 20, and India 27.

There isn't really any reason to suppose that the USA should be so very different.

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

#177

Post by alexgieg »

jack_h wrote: post #157
alexgieg wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I'm not saying the government shouldn't be held accountable, merely that the due process clause of the 14th amendment is the wrong vehicle. The right to due process in the case of deprivation of life does not mean any deprivation of life such as due to accident or negligence. It's more about the state executing you for a crime. Engineering a way to get rid of people would just be murder, there's no get out of jail fr…

On the first point, shouldn't the government officials who deliberately withheld the information they had of the water containing lead be prosecuted for attempted murder then?

On the second, why did they write it then? Just because they felt like it, while fully knowing it to be meaningless?

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

#178

Post by db48x »

Frieren wrote: post #172
db48x wrote: post #170

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People in the USA have both the right speak as they wish and to associate amongst themselves freely for any lawful purpose. A corporation is nothing more than a group of people who are associating with each other. If one person acting alone has a right to speak, how can that same right be denied to a group who have decided to speak together? And since “speech” in this context has always been interpreted to mean any a…

> how can that same right be denied to a group who have decided to speak together? Corporations are not people nor behave like individuals. Money is not speech. > “speech” in this context has always been interpreted to mean any act by which a message is conveyed to other people Like a bullet? That explains the high murder rate in the USA. Your argument makes no sense and only works if one does not think too much abou…

No, no! Corporations are _groups_ of people. _Donating_ money is speech.
Post reply on HN