5 ms·

> alleged that the city knowingly allowed residents to drink unsafe water. Surely knowingly letting people drink lead contaminated water breaks other laws rath

> alleged that the city knowingly allowed residents to drink unsafe water. Surely knowingly letting people drink lead contaminated water breaks other laws rather than their constitutional rights?

etchalon 9d ago
Turns out, if the government does it, no.
zamadatix 9d ago
Dependence on "interpretation of the day" of the US Constitution seems to have overtaken regular maintenance of the law in a lot of high profile issues for the last many decades.
- dathinab 9d ago
  from an external POV it looks a lot like: - the US law making process is fundamental and deeply broken to a point of it feels comparable to the Weimar Republic (the Germany between WW1 and Hitler taking over, around it's end it was pretty much dysfunctional when it comes to passing laws) - instead things which should be law changes, and should be pursued bipartisan, are squeezed into other things. Like the budged bill, wider interpretations(1) of the existing law etc. - or bundled into absurdly large bills covering docents of things which should not be one bill (which is very un-democratic and likely harmful for the US citizens. It allows corrupt politicians to forces less corrupt ones to vote for bad laws, because they are bundled with very essential needed changes, it also has shown to pose a very realistic risk of "sneaking" in something bad etc.) - other cases often get stuck or even for topics which should be bipartisan held hostage to push some other goals - with the current president this seems to have gotten even worse as he and the people close to him have attacked changes otherwise pursued by a wider bipartisan support. So even iff you can onboard both sides it might not mean enough in this legislation. But while I'm pretty sure I have seen such cases I can't remember details, so take with a grain of salt. - to add in on top of all of that: Consumer and environmental protection in the US has always been a bit weak, a bit too slow, and often lacking precautionary approaches (most thing being reactive to enough people suffering harm, even if it was clear for a long time that idk. a product isn't safe or similar). And in some aspects this has been further crippled by the current administration, but idk. if such aspects apply here. That means even iff the current state is caused by a crime, it likely will take years to make stop the criminal from committing it. If it's seen as a breach of constitution things likely would move faster, and corrupt local governments have a much harder time undermining it. --- (^1): Which isn't always bad, some degree of "vagueness" to handle the complexity of constant changing IRL is often desirable (as a dump example you also would make a law to forbid killing, instead of a law which explicitly lists and forbids every imaginable way you might kill someone). But what I mean goes far beyond that. In general some recognition of "basic human right" on a constitutional level should be something any citizen should ask their country to have. And I mean that independent of the international human rights court and the specific interpretation of human rights common with it. Not recognizing it is one thing, but insistently not recognizing any form of human rights is another, IMHO pretty evil, thing.
georgemcbay 9d ago
> Surely knowingly letting people drink lead contaminated water breaks other laws rather than their constitutional rights? The legality of poisoning people with toxic water in the US seems to depend upon how black they are (based on clear patterns of where this is allowed to happen).
Zigurd 9d ago
It seems nonsensical that the government could have the power to lie to and defraud the people while poisoning them. That just renders other rights meaningless.
- dnautics 9d ago
  sure, but that's not the 14th amendment. Maybe the guarantee clause. It MIGHT touch the 14th amendment via incorporation. That's not what the attorneys argued.
  - ceejayoz 9d ago
    > nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law Surely intentional lead poisoning counts?
flufluflufluffy 9d ago
If there was documented, provable harm done to the residents from the lead poisoning (not saying there isn’t, I just don’t know), they could surely win a civil case claiming negligence by the city and/or water treatment facilities/etc… There may also be laws or regulations in Jackson or Mississippi that were broken. Perhaps there aren’t, but there maybe should be. Which are all points brought up by Engelhardt: > The Constitution does not provide redress for every governmental wrongdoing. Rather, the remedy for Plaintiffs’ injuries lies in pursuing tort claims, electing representatives who will better manage the public-water system, and petitioning their representatives for other remedies. And Plaintiffs have not been left to go at it alone. The State of Mississippi and federal government have worked for years, and continue today, to improve the City of Jackson’s drinking water quality through regulations, investigations, and compliance plans. These already-established-and-undertaken avenues are the proper course for rectifying the lead contamination. We will not expand the Fourteenth Amendment to create novel theories of constitutional liability. And now people who don’t take the time to actually read, or just can’t understand, are gonna be yelling and screaming about how the courts are corrupt, etc… (some courts may very well be corrupt! But this would not be a good example why).
- newswasboring 9d ago
  > If there was documented, provable harm done to the residents from the lead poisoning (not saying there isn’t, I just don’t know), they could surely win a civil case claiming negligence by the city and/or water treatment facilities/etc I would never understand this system. So to get repatriation on damage done a citizen has to mount an entire legal initiative. Even if the guilt is already proved. It just feels like a system where departments of government will only sue to fill their own budget next year.
carefulfungi 9d ago
In the sense that the law is expansive... probably? But... There is a federal law requiring government officials provide "honest services" (the searchable phrase to learn more). The supreme court ruled it was too vague to be constitutional and restricted its enforcement to outright bribery (more or less). In the US, the executive branch can lie to you. Deception is a common law enforcement tool, as an example. The military / CIA actively use false news and propaganda. Unless an official is under oath, consider they might be intentionally deceiving you. (And even then...)
- paulryanrogers 9d ago
  I thought the government's use of deception was limited to only circumstances necessary to protect people from harm, not to inflict harm upon them.

> alleged that the city knowingly allowed residents to drink unsafe water. Surely knowingly letting people drink lead contaminated water breaks other laws rather than their constitutional rights?

etchalon 9d ago

Turns out, if the government does it, no.

zamadatix 9d ago

Dependence on "interpretation of the day" of the US Constitution seems to have overtaken regular maintenance of the law in a lot of high profile issues for the last many decades.

dathinab 9d ago
from an external POV it looks a lot like: - the US law making process is fundamental and deeply broken to a point of it feels comparable to the Weimar Republic (the Germany between WW1 and Hitler taking over, around it's end it was pretty much dysfunctional when it comes to passing laws) - instead things which should be law changes, and should be pursued bipartisan, are squeezed into other things. Like the budged bill, wider interpretations(1) of the existing law etc. - or bundled into absurdly large bills covering docents of things which should not be one bill (which is very un-democratic and likely harmful for the US citizens. It allows corrupt politicians to forces less corrupt ones to vote for bad laws, because they are bundled with very essential needed changes, it also has shown to pose a very realistic risk of "sneaking" in something bad etc.) - other cases often get stuck or even for topics which should be bipartisan held hostage to push some other goals - with the current president this seems to have gotten even worse as he and the people close to him have attacked changes otherwise pursued by a wider bipartisan support. So even iff you can onboard both sides it might not mean enough in this legislation. But while I'm pretty sure I have seen such cases I can't remember details, so take with a grain of salt. - to add in on top of all of that: Consumer and environmental protection in the US has always been a bit weak, a bit too slow, and often lacking precautionary approaches (most thing being reactive to enough people suffering harm, even if it was clear for a long time that idk. a product isn't safe or similar). And in some aspects this has been further crippled by the current administration, but idk. if such aspects apply here. That means even iff the current state is caused by a crime, it likely will take years to make stop the criminal from committing it. If it's seen as a breach of constitution things likely would move faster, and corrupt local governments have a much harder time undermining it. --- (^1): Which isn't always bad, some degree of "vagueness" to handle the complexity of constant changing IRL is often desirable (as a dump example you also would make a law to forbid killing, instead of a law which explicitly lists and forbids every imaginable way you might kill someone). But what I mean goes far beyond that. In general some recognition of "basic human right" on a constitutional level should be something any citizen should ask their country to have. And I mean that independent of the international human rights court and the specific interpretation of human rights common with it. Not recognizing it is one thing, but insistently not recognizing any form of human rights is another, IMHO pretty evil, thing.

georgemcbay 9d ago

> Surely knowingly letting people drink lead contaminated water breaks other laws rather than their constitutional rights? The legality of poisoning people with toxic water in the US seems to depend upon how black they are (based on clear patterns of where this is allowed to happen).

Zigurd 9d ago

It seems nonsensical that the government could have the power to lie to and defraud the people while poisoning them. That just renders other rights meaningless.

dnautics 9d ago
sure, but that's not the 14th amendment. Maybe the guarantee clause. It MIGHT touch the 14th amendment via incorporation. That's not what the attorneys argued.
- ceejayoz 9d ago
  > nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law Surely intentional lead poisoning counts?

flufluflufluffy 9d ago

If there was documented, provable harm done to the residents from the lead poisoning (not saying there isn’t, I just don’t know), they could surely win a civil case claiming negligence by the city and/or water treatment facilities/etc… There may also be laws or regulations in Jackson or Mississippi that were broken. Perhaps there aren’t, but there maybe should be. Which are all points brought up by Engelhardt: > The Constitution does not provide redress for every governmental wrongdoing. Rather, the remedy for Plaintiffs’ injuries lies in pursuing tort claims, electing representatives who will better manage the public-water system, and petitioning their representatives for other remedies. And Plaintiffs have not been left to go at it alone. The State of Mississippi and federal government have worked for years, and continue today, to improve the City of Jackson’s drinking water quality through regulations, investigations, and compliance plans. These already-established-and-undertaken avenues are the proper course for rectifying the lead contamination. We will not expand the Fourteenth Amendment to create novel theories of constitutional liability. And now people who don’t take the time to actually read, or just can’t understand, are gonna be yelling and screaming about how the courts are corrupt, etc… (some courts may very well be corrupt! But this would not be a good example why).

newswasboring 9d ago
> If there was documented, provable harm done to the residents from the lead poisoning (not saying there isn’t, I just don’t know), they could surely win a civil case claiming negligence by the city and/or water treatment facilities/etc I would never understand this system. So to get repatriation on damage done a citizen has to mount an entire legal initiative. Even if the guilt is already proved. It just feels like a system where departments of government will only sue to fill their own budget next year.

carefulfungi 9d ago

In the sense that the law is expansive... probably? But... There is a federal law requiring government officials provide "honest services" (the searchable phrase to learn more). The supreme court ruled it was too vague to be constitutional and restricted its enforcement to outright bribery (more or less). In the US, the executive branch can lie to you. Deception is a common law enforcement tool, as an example. The military / CIA actively use false news and propaganda. Unless an official is under oath, consider they might be intentionally deceiving you. (And even then...)

paulryanrogers 9d ago
I thought the government's use of deception was limited to only circumstances necessary to protect people from harm, not to inflict harm upon them.