3 ms·

It says several things, including this: "nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law" One might argue the

It says several things, including this: "nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law" One might argue they're not required to provide water, but I'd argue this means they can't knowingly provide dangerous water laced with a neurotoxin and lie about its safety as in this case. (And there's an "equal protection of the laws" aspect to "lead in the water supply tends to disproportionately occur in poor communities", too.)

deleted 1mo ago
[deleted]
pdonis 1mo ago
The city is not a State, so that clause would not apply to it. Unless you want to argue that the State of Mississippi was violating the Fourteenth Amendment by not requiring its cities to provide clean water (the article mentions that a few other states have done this). But this suit wasn't against the state.
- ceejayoz 1mo ago
  > The city is not a State Oh, come on. This is tortured logic that would argue the Fourth Amendment doesn't apply to most police departments in the country and that town school boards could violate the First Amendment and have religious instruction. States are co-sovereigns with the Feds. Your city is not. Your city's state cannot allow the local jurisdictions under it violate the Constitution either. Your town can't forbid black people from voting for mayor. etc. etc. etc. For a concrete example: https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/390/474/ https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/390/474/ > Held: Local units with general governmental powers over an entire geographic area may not, consistently with the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, be apportioned among single member districts of substantially unequal population. > The Equal Protection Clause reaches the exercise of state power, whether exercised by the State or a political subdivision.
  - pdonis 27d ago
    > This is tortured logic that would argue the Fourth Amendment doesn't apply to most police departments in the country Not at all. The Fourth Amendment does not specify any specific level of government. It gives general requirements that apply to all levels of government. The Fourteenth Amendment explicitly says "States". That makes a difference--or it should. Someone else upthread pointed out that the Supreme Court in Yick Wo applied it to a city municipal ordinance, so as usual, the explicit language has been ignored and the actual de facto interpretation is indeed broader. > and that town school boards could violate the First Amendment and have religious instruction. The First Amendment explicitly says that Congress shall make no law...and the reason for that was that, at the time, most States had established religions and they didn't want the Federal government messing with that. And yes, those States ran religious schools to indoctrinate children in their established religions. Over time, as all those State established religions went away and as a country we became much more secular, the de facto interpretation of the First Amendment has changed, so that we now expect that local governments can't, for example, run religious schools. But any such claim would have been dismissed as nonsense by the original Framers of the amendment. > For a concrete example Yes, I'm aware that the Supreme Court routinely imposes its own interpretation on what the Constitution says, whether it makes sense or is consistent with the actual language or not. The one you cite was fairly mild compared to, say, Hampton Co. v. United States, or Wickard v. Filburn, or Kelo v. New London.

deleted 1mo ago

[deleted]

pdonis 1mo ago

The city is not a State, so that clause would not apply to it. Unless you want to argue that the State of Mississippi was violating the Fourteenth Amendment by not requiring its cities to provide clean water (the article mentions that a few other states have done this). But this suit wasn't against the state.

ceejayoz 1mo ago
> The city is not a State Oh, come on. This is tortured logic that would argue the Fourth Amendment doesn't apply to most police departments in the country and that town school boards could violate the First Amendment and have religious instruction. States are co-sovereigns with the Feds. Your city is not. Your city's state cannot allow the local jurisdictions under it violate the Constitution either. Your town can't forbid black people from voting for mayor. etc. etc. etc. For a concrete example: https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/390/474/ https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/390/474/ > Held: Local units with general governmental powers over an entire geographic area may not, consistently with the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, be apportioned among single member districts of substantially unequal population. > The Equal Protection Clause reaches the exercise of state power, whether exercised by the State or a political subdivision.
- pdonis 27d ago
  > This is tortured logic that would argue the Fourth Amendment doesn't apply to most police departments in the country Not at all. The Fourth Amendment does not specify any specific level of government. It gives general requirements that apply to all levels of government. The Fourteenth Amendment explicitly says "States". That makes a difference--or it should. Someone else upthread pointed out that the Supreme Court in Yick Wo applied it to a city municipal ordinance, so as usual, the explicit language has been ignored and the actual de facto interpretation is indeed broader. > and that town school boards could violate the First Amendment and have religious instruction. The First Amendment explicitly says that Congress shall make no law...and the reason for that was that, at the time, most States had established religions and they didn't want the Federal government messing with that. And yes, those States ran religious schools to indoctrinate children in their established religions. Over time, as all those State established religions went away and as a country we became much more secular, the de facto interpretation of the First Amendment has changed, so that we now expect that local governments can't, for example, run religious schools. But any such claim would have been dismissed as nonsense by the original Framers of the amendment. > For a concrete example Yes, I'm aware that the Supreme Court routinely imposes its own interpretation on what the Constitution says, whether it makes sense or is consistent with the actual language or not. The one you cite was fairly mild compared to, say, Hampton Co. v. United States, or Wickard v. Filburn, or Kelo v. New London.