3 ms·

Isn't lying about the fact there's lead in water and telling them it's safe to drink a way for a government to "deprive you of life"? I mean, if any such lie, p

Isn't lying about the fact there's lead in water and telling them it's safe to drink a way for a government to "deprive you of life"? I mean, if any such lie, plus the associated loss of life, is allowed, government officials can in theory engineer ways to get rid of people "without due process" while keeping themselves free of any consequence. Also, doesn't the Preamble to the US Constitution say it was established by the People with, among others, the goal to "promote the general Welfare" of the people? How is the general welfare promoted by the government deliberately holding information on what they know is going to severely damage their welfare?

jack_h 24d ago
I'm not saying the government shouldn't be held accountable, merely that the due process clause of the 14th amendment is the wrong vehicle. The right to due process in the case of deprivation of life does not mean any deprivation of life such as due to accident or negligence. It's more about the state executing you for a crime. Engineering a way to get rid of people would just be murder, there's no get out of jail free card there. The preamble isn't a source of any substantive power.
- alexgieg 24d ago
  On the first point, shouldn't the government officials who deliberately withheld the information they had of the water containing lead be prosecuted for attempted murder then? On the second, why did they write it then? Just because they felt like it, while fully knowing it to be meaningless?