4 ms·

That makes no sense. The 14th not covering clean water at the time it was written is not because they didn't have germ theory. The comparison to the 2nd also m

by tzs 1mo ago

That makes no sense. The 14th not covering clean water at the time it was written is not because they didn't have germ theory. The comparison to the 2nd also makes no sense. First, machine guns come up in arguments about reducing the scope of the 2nd whereas the argument here is about expanding the scope of the 14th. Second, the 2nd is a lot clearer than the 14th. Pretty much every concrete right we get out of the 14th is either something that is inferred from it being generally recognized as an unstated right by the time the 14th was passed or has been found by arguing that it is implicit in the other more explicit rights (e.g., right to privacy as something you have to have to make some of the more explicit rights meaningful).

ceejayoz 1mo ago
> 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 violation of it.
- TheRealPomax 1mo ago
  Except the law clearly says "deprive" not "provide". You'll have to show how folks are being deprived of water if you want to argue this line of reasoning, "providing contaminated water" is not covered by this text, and has the trivial rebutal that no one is forced to accept said water, even if the alternative is a shit situation. That situation does not deprive them of life, liberty, or property, and so there is no constitutional violation. Plus, you don't need the constitution to place lawful burner on parties, you just need laws that do not conflict with that constitution. Just because the 14th/2nd don't guarantee access to clean water does not mean they therefore guarantee no access to clean water. That is not how words work.
  - ceejayoz 1mo ago
    Government officials intentionally giving someone lead poisoning is depriving them of life. I'm 100% fine with "there's no Constitutional requirement for a jurisdiction to provide a water supply" - plenty of folks live on well water. If you're going to provide one, though, you're responsible for it. Similarly, my town is not required to provide internet access to its residents. If my town does decide to provide internet access to me (like Chattanoga TN), they can't censor my access and use of it, because of the First Amendment.
    - db48x 1mo ago
      No, it really isn’t. Yes, the constitution promises life. But it does not promise a safe life, or a secure life, or even an unpoisoned life. Exposure to low levels of lead in drinking water will not kill anyone so the Constitution just doesn’t apply. It sounds callous, but that’s the way it is. We must look to our own safety and security. One way we do that is by banding together with our neighbors to form cities or other municipalities that tax us and use the proceeds to build safe water systems. If we elect untrustworthy or incompetent people to run those water systems then we have no one to blame but ourselves. If a city doesn’t have a law requiring the administrators of the water system to speak truthfully to the public then that is the people’s fault, not the government’s fault. Honestly though I bet we’ll find that the administrators have technically been telling the truth. We have federal standards for things like water safety that are used to regulate water providers (which are not always public entities, mind you). Those standards do tell us how much lead in the water is acceptable and how much is unsafe, but those are two different numbers. The acceptable level is well below the threshold of safety. When this eventually gets to a trial in front of a jury I bet the administrators will argue that they were perfectly correct; that the water was safe because the levels of contaminates, although elevated, were below harmful levels. The plaintiffs also complain about repeated boil–water notices, but that may not help their case. Any time you dig up a water pipe to repair or replace it then people using that water will need to boil it. Those notices are themselves proof that the utility was doing maintenance and repair work (presumably with the goal of fixing the problem), not proof of incompetence. I’m not sure I’d want to be on that jury.
- tzs 1mo ago
  >> 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?
  - ceejayoz 29d ago
    > 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.

by tzs 1mo ago

ceejayoz 1mo ago

> 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 violation of it.

TheRealPomax 1mo ago
Except the law clearly says "deprive" not "provide". You'll have to show how folks are being deprived of water if you want to argue this line of reasoning, "providing contaminated water" is not covered by this text, and has the trivial rebutal that no one is forced to accept said water, even if the alternative is a shit situation. That situation does not deprive them of life, liberty, or property, and so there is no constitutional violation. Plus, you don't need the constitution to place lawful burner on parties, you just need laws that do not conflict with that constitution. Just because the 14th/2nd don't guarantee access to clean water does not mean they therefore guarantee no access to clean water. That is not how words work.
- ceejayoz 1mo ago
  Government officials intentionally giving someone lead poisoning is depriving them of life. I'm 100% fine with "there's no Constitutional requirement for a jurisdiction to provide a water supply" - plenty of folks live on well water. If you're going to provide one, though, you're responsible for it. Similarly, my town is not required to provide internet access to its residents. If my town does decide to provide internet access to me (like Chattanoga TN), they can't censor my access and use of it, because of the First Amendment.
  - db48x 1mo ago
    No, it really isn’t. Yes, the constitution promises life. But it does not promise a safe life, or a secure life, or even an unpoisoned life. Exposure to low levels of lead in drinking water will not kill anyone so the Constitution just doesn’t apply. It sounds callous, but that’s the way it is. We must look to our own safety and security. One way we do that is by banding together with our neighbors to form cities or other municipalities that tax us and use the proceeds to build safe water systems. If we elect untrustworthy or incompetent people to run those water systems then we have no one to blame but ourselves. If a city doesn’t have a law requiring the administrators of the water system to speak truthfully to the public then that is the people’s fault, not the government’s fault. Honestly though I bet we’ll find that the administrators have technically been telling the truth. We have federal standards for things like water safety that are used to regulate water providers (which are not always public entities, mind you). Those standards do tell us how much lead in the water is acceptable and how much is unsafe, but those are two different numbers. The acceptable level is well below the threshold of safety. When this eventually gets to a trial in front of a jury I bet the administrators will argue that they were perfectly correct; that the water was safe because the levels of contaminates, although elevated, were below harmful levels. The plaintiffs also complain about repeated boil–water notices, but that may not help their case. Any time you dig up a water pipe to repair or replace it then people using that water will need to boil it. Those notices are themselves proof that the utility was doing maintenance and repair work (presumably with the goal of fixing the problem), not proof of incompetence. I’m not sure I’d want to be on that jury.
tzs 1mo ago
>> 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?
- ceejayoz 29d ago
  > 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.