3 ms·
Still not that simple: > The Jackson plaintiffs alleged that their city government deliberately withheld information about the water’s toxicity, and exacerbate
by mdp2021 1mo 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 1mo agoWhere is the constitution does it say the state can't do that?
- mdp2021 1mo agoWe would ask you to rephrase - and, if we interpreted correctly, to reread.
- quotemstr 1mo 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 1mo agoThe gp points out that some states, (for example, Massachusetts) opt to put this in their own constitutions
- JuniperMesos 1mo agoBut 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 1mo agoSubstantive due process in the 14th. The 9th makes it clear that not all rights need to be explicitly in the text.