3 ms·

This headline is not correct. The ruling was that a constitutional lawsuit was not successful, not that the the US government has carte blanche to poison its ci

This headline is not correct. The ruling was that a constitutional lawsuit was not successful, not that the the US government has carte blanche to poison its citizens drinking water… So, the correct headline would be “safe drinking water ruled not to be covered by the US constitution”. There are other binding agreements and regulations than the constitution in the US.

mdp2021 26d ago
Still not that simple: > The Jackson plaintiffs alleged that their city government deliberately withheld information about the water’s toxicity, and exacerbated the problem through a series of boil-water notices - a practice that can eliminate some bacterial contamination, but also concentrates lead in water. Engelhardt stated there is no “constitutional right to truthful information from officials during a public health crisis” The constitutional question (and note that state Constitutions, e.g. Massachusetts, may instead cover it) is just one piece of the mess.
- quotemstr 26d ago
  Where is the constitution does it say the state can't do that?
  - mdp2021 26d ago
    We would ask you to rephrase - and, if we interpreted correctly, to reread.
    - quotemstr 26d ago
      "We"? Yeah, okay, Your Highness. As for the content: the law says what it says. Where in the constitution of the United States of America and its amendments does it say that a state government must be truthful about public health statements? The law says what it says. A behavior might be rotten, evil, illegal under other documents, and an all-round bad idea and still not a violation of, in particular, the constitution of the United States of America and its amendments
      - klawed 26d ago
        The gp points out that some states, (for example, Massachusetts) opt to put this in their own constitutions
        JuniperMesos 26d ago
        But not Mississippi evidently, or the court probably would've mentioned that and Mother Jones reporter Sophie Hurwitz would've mentioned that in the article. Maybe Mississippi should enact some kind of state constitutional provision asserting this, but they haven't.
  - UncleMeat 26d ago
    Substantive due process in the 14th. The 9th makes it clear that not all rights need to be explicitly in the text.
shevy-java 26d ago
No, that headline would still be wrong. It makes no sense to make water exempt from other forms of damage caused by treatment or contamination. By the same "logic" you apply here, you could reason that radiation is exempt from the constitution because back in 1796 something they did not specify that down via law. That makes no sense.
talon8635 26d ago
Mother Jones skewing the narrative? Say it ain’t so!

mdp2021 26d ago

Still not that simple: > The Jackson plaintiffs alleged that their city government deliberately withheld information about the water’s toxicity, and exacerbated the problem through a series of boil-water notices - a practice that can eliminate some bacterial contamination, but also concentrates lead in water. Engelhardt stated there is no “constitutional right to truthful information from officials during a public health crisis” The constitutional question (and note that state Constitutions, e.g. Massachusetts, may instead cover it) is just one piece of the mess.

quotemstr 26d ago
Where is the constitution does it say the state can't do that?
- mdp2021 26d ago
  We would ask you to rephrase - and, if we interpreted correctly, to reread.
  - quotemstr 26d ago
    "We"? Yeah, okay, Your Highness. As for the content: the law says what it says. Where in the constitution of the United States of America and its amendments does it say that a state government must be truthful about public health statements? The law says what it says. A behavior might be rotten, evil, illegal under other documents, and an all-round bad idea and still not a violation of, in particular, the constitution of the United States of America and its amendments
    - klawed 26d ago
      The gp points out that some states, (for example, Massachusetts) opt to put this in their own constitutions
      - JuniperMesos 26d ago
        But not Mississippi evidently, or the court probably would've mentioned that and Mother Jones reporter Sophie Hurwitz would've mentioned that in the article. Maybe Mississippi should enact some kind of state constitutional provision asserting this, but they haven't.
- UncleMeat 26d ago
  Substantive due process in the 14th. The 9th makes it clear that not all rights need to be explicitly in the text.

shevy-java 26d ago

No, that headline would still be wrong. It makes no sense to make water exempt from other forms of damage caused by treatment or contamination. By the same "logic" you apply here, you could reason that radiation is exempt from the constitution because back in 1796 something they did not specify that down via law. That makes no sense.

talon8635 26d ago

Mother Jones skewing the narrative? Say it ain’t so!