upvote
> Defendants’ actions allegedly deprived Plaintiffs of clean water and guileless information. These deprivations, while grievous, do not infringe upon any deeply rooted constitutional right.”

Nah, headline is optimistic actually: no right to clean water, to water tests, or to the truth about the tests if they occur. No right to healthcare, schools, or even deliverable mail either. But surely some of these are just the kind of thing you might expect as an absolute minimum everywhere if you have to pay taxes.

reply
Sorry, I think your pull quote is actually contradicting your gloss. Again, the pull quote states that it doesn’t infringe any constitutional right, not that it doesn’t infringe any rights granted for any other reason?
reply
Cool cool, I can see you've got a sharp eye for detail my friend but let's really get down to it. What exactly is it that you really want to defend here? Why do you want to defend it? And more to the point, do you like drinking clean water? Do you think people should have it or not?
reply
The US Constitution, by itself, grants US citizens everything as a right, then enumerates the exceptions to those all-encompassing rights carved out as necessary for the operation of a government.

The correct question is: Where does the US Constitution grant governments the power to poison and lie to residents?

This isn’t some pedantry but fundamental American civics. The US Constitution explicitly does not enumerate rights. It’s default-allow, explicit-deny regarding human rights. It’s rather alarming that anyone would think it’s default-deny, explicit-allow. That’s not how the Constitution is written.

reply
By this logic, state employees and elected officials, who are themselves US citizens, have the right to say anything at all to the public, including blatant lies about public health issues, because there's no specific legal exception banning them from doing so.
reply
As government representatives, they’re limited to the behavior that the Constitution grants to the government. Here’s an explainer to said Constitution you may find useful: https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/article-1/sec...

After reading that, please do tell where the power to poison water and lie about it is granted to the government, and the members of that government.

reply
On the other hand it means that states can just not do that and leave their citizens without clean drinking water.
reply
Does it? I think that conclusion requires observing additionally that all federal law also fails to grant a right to safe drinking water, doesn’t it?
reply
Many municipal water systems are wholely in one state. Does the Constitution grant Congress the right to control municipal water quality?

Also it's kind of a moot point if federal law has not granted that right and does not seem likely to.

reply
Page 2 second paragraph."Rather, the remedy for Plaintiffs’ injuries lies in pursuing .." https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/24/24-60370-CV1.pd...
reply
Yes

> Rather, the remedy for Plaintiffs’ injuries lies in pursuing tort claims, electing representatives who will better manage the public-water system, and petitioning their representatives for other remedies.

which is easier said than done.

From outside of US this seems extremely ass backwards.

reply
The headline look pretty accurate to me. Under this ruling, being a US citizen does not guarantee you a constitutional right to safe drinking water; that right would depend on state legislation.

I think the bigger deal is that the people of Jackson were lied to and this sets the precedent that there is no recourse. It's not like someone in Flint knowingly drank contaminated water, the city withheld the fact that their water was contaminated with unsafe levels of lead.

reply
As the article says, the situation in Jackson was deplorable; and it is indeed mind-boggling (to my puny European mind) that the same constitution which grants freedom of speech and the press was also not intended to grant the right to receive only believed-correct information from the government. But the ruling, for example, is not quoted as making any mention of any federal laws? The headline may be true for all I know, but the article provides only evidence for its truth about one particular source of rights.
reply
[dead]
reply