7 ms·

This ruling seems obviously correct to me? The plaintiffs claimed this was a 14th amendment issue, but at the time the 14th was added cholera outbreaks were sti

This ruling seems obviously correct to me? 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. Hopefully there is some other legal redress under a different law or EPA regulation, but the courts can't just give in to faulty reasoning like that because people were wronged by the government.

ceejayoz 10d ago
That'd require them explaining why "the 14th Amendment predates germ theory" is a reasonable argument but not "the Second Amendment predates machine guns".
- giantg2 10d ago
  Germ theory really started around 1860 and the 14th amendment was 1868. Seems they both coexisted.
  - chrisux 10d ago
    They didn't have the internet back then bro, information moved much slower. Governments (USA Included) tend to move much slower than tech. Germ Theory starting -only- 8 years prior doesn't really mean much here...
    - giantg2 10d ago
      Things taking a year or two was normal, but 8 years is plenty of time. There were long distance publications in many areas of the world even earlier in time. You can look at how every back in the 1700s Benjamin Franklin had a newspaper across the US and routinely corresponded with Europe.
  - eddythompson80 10d ago
    Germ theory originated in Europe and it took a couple of decades before the knowledge transfer made it to the US and started getting accepted. It took a while for it to be come generally accepted in Europe too. I'm hazy on the exact dates, but even accepting the 1860 date, it's far too close to 1868 to assume politicians and the general public in the US (or even in Europe in 8 years) would have passed a constitutional amendment with full acceptance or understanding of germ theory.
    - giantg2 10d ago
      It wouldn't have taken decades. Information might have taken a year or two. Decisions on what to do with that may take longer. I find it unlikely that germ theory wasn't known by those involved with the 14th amendment, even though it wasnt based on it.
      - ceejayoz 9d ago
        > It wouldn't have taken decades. We've had vaccination/innoculation for centuries and people still don't accept it.
      - eddythompson80 9d ago
        I’m basing my assumptions based on a book called Rabid which suggested (if memory serves correctly) that the rabies vaccine (developed in 1885) was the one of the early catalysts for the wide acceptance of germ theory among the American public. If you want a random source here is one https://www.civilwarmed.org/germ-theory-civil-war/ https://www.civilwarmed.org/germ-theory-civil-war/ > To his credit, Dr. Lister crossed the Atlantic to deliver a lecture to a hostile American audience to try and convince them of his methods in 1876. > Our own Jake Wynn argues that it wasn’t until the death of President Garfield in 1881 that the American public and physicians began to turn toward germ theory. His slow and painful descent from an assassination attempt was well documented and publicized at the time. There is a difference between information transmission and it getting absorbed into the public opinion and understanding so much that a constitutional amendment would consider it. To go from Joseph Lister’s and Louis Pasteur’s work in the 1860s and think that politicians and the general voting public in the US passing a constitutional amendment that considers it in a handful of years just doesn’t make much sense.
  - c6400sc 10d ago
    Yes, because germ theory was accepted immediately by the establishment. Oh wait, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contemporary_reaction_to_Ignaz_Semmelweis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contemporary_reaction_to_Ignaz...
    - giantg2 9d ago
      And this predates by 20 years! Wonder how pastuer faired...
- psunavy03 10d ago
  So do you or do you not believe the First Amendment protects speech on this website? Or does it only protect quill pens and moveable type printing presses?
  - ceejayoz 10d ago
    > So do you or do you not believe the First Amendment protects speech on this website? From the government, yes. From @dang, no. Similarly, I think it's a clear Constitutional violation for a city government to knowingly give people lead poisoning.
- hypeatei 10d ago
  Machine guns are banned at the federal level, though, and it's been consistently upheld by the courts. I'm not sure I follow the argument anyway; the US constitution consists of negative rights (e.g. freedom to do something) rather than positive rights (e.g. entitlements)
  - ceejayoz 10d ago
    > Machine guns are banned at the federal level, though… Semiautomatics, if you prefer. (And plenty of Second Amendment purists feel that limit is unconstitutional, and SCOTUS may well soon agree. As they just did with silencers - https://www.npr.org/2026/08/17/nx-s1-5935562/firearms-law-lapsed-federal-court-ruling https://www.npr.org/2026/08/17/nx-s1-5935562/firearms-law-la...) > I'm not sure I follow the argument anyway; the US constitution consists of negative rights (e.g. freedom to do something) rather than positive rights (e.g. entitlements) That's what the Ninth Amendment is for.
    - candlewaxchewer 10d ago
      The limit on machine guns is unconstitutional and most of the argument against ignore the ninth amendment (e.g founding fathers couldn’t imagine a weapon past the musket, therefor any weapon made after 1776 is illegal) I doubt the ninth amendment applies to entitlements, as these are fundamentally different from liberties
      - ceejayoz 10d ago
        > The limit on machine guns is unconstitutional If so, the argument upthread about "well cholera" fails for similar reasons. > I doubt the ninth amendment applies to entitlements, as these are fundamentally different from liberties The Ninth Amendment doesn't use either term. Just rights. (Which I am, *ahem*, entitled to.)
- AustinDev 10d ago
  >"the Second Amendment predates machine guns" That statement is false. Repeating firearms like the Puckle gun predate the bill of rights by ~75 years. More importantly, the Founders were hardly unfamiliar with privately owned military firepower. The Constitution expressly authorized Congress to grant letters of marque, and the government commissioned privateers to attack enemy shipping using their cannon-armed privately-owned warships. If you want to change an amendment do it the correct way, repeal it.
  - ceejayoz 10d ago
    > The Constitution expressly authorized Congress to grant letters of marque… the government commissioned privateers... So Congress had a certain level of... control? Over guns?
    - AustinDev 10d ago
      I know you're an idealogical zealot but, for anyone else reading. I do find it interesting that the only laws I can find limiting the arming of private vessels were with respect to arming them and then sending them off to fight in foreign wars.[1] [1] Neutrality Act of 1794, §§3–4, 1 Stat. 381, 383
      - ceejayoz 10d ago
        Vessels is a bit of an odd thing to focus on, frankly. I'm largely not allowed to own a fully armed tank, fighter jet, or howitzer. (With a few strictly controlled exceptions; https://www.skiutah.com/blog/authors/lexi/last-gunners-the-conclusion-of-alta1/ https://www.skiutah.com/blog/authors/lexi/last-gunners-the-c...)
        AustinDev 9d ago
        Cannon-armed Vessels were the pinnacle of military technology at the time the Bill of Rights was authored.
        9d ago
- jack_h 10d ago
  The second amendment is a pretty well articulated negative right in the same manner as the first or the fourth in the classical liberal school of thought. These are natural rights that individuals have and the bill of rights merely states that these are outside of the government’s sphere. The technology being used whether it be voicing your opinion on the internet, your house being secure from searches with thermal cameras without a warrant, or using modern firearms doesn’t alter the right or the government’s relationship to it. The fourteenth amendment, specifically the due process clause at issue here, says that if the government exercises its power to deprive you of life, liberty, or property it must provide due process. In this case the government was not exercising such a power. It does not say that the government must provide clean water, in which case our understanding of what “clean” means would mirror the technological indifference of the aforementioned rights. Due process clause is just a really bad vehicle for this type of grievance.
  - alexgieg 9d ago
    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 9d 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.
- Brian_K_White 10d ago
  The 14th does not predate germ theory. The 2nd does not predate machine guns. The 1st does predate the internet. And none of these matter because the Constitution deals in principles not details. "This guy was killed with a laser but the law against murder was written after clubs but predates lasers, so it doesn't apply and you can't call this a murder." The ruling sounds correct to me but not because of anything to do with the date that any part of the constitution or ammendment was written.
- tzs 10d 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 10d 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 9d 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 9d 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.
giantg2 10d ago
It should just be reckless endangerment criminal charges - they knew it was unsafe and provided it anyways.
cowpig 9d ago
> Plaintiffs allege1 that the City, through a series of acts and failures to act, caused lead to leach into Jackson’s drinking water. City officials then, despite the presence of lead in the water, incorrectly told residents that the water was safe to drink, despite knowing it likely was not. This is the allegation. Doesn't sound much like "the constitution guarantees us safe drinking water," but rather "the constitution says our city government officials can't knowingly poison us and lie about it"

ceejayoz 10d ago

That'd require them explaining why "the 14th Amendment predates germ theory" is a reasonable argument but not "the Second Amendment predates machine guns".

giantg2 10d ago
Germ theory really started around 1860 and the 14th amendment was 1868. Seems they both coexisted.
- chrisux 10d ago
  They didn't have the internet back then bro, information moved much slower. Governments (USA Included) tend to move much slower than tech. Germ Theory starting -only- 8 years prior doesn't really mean much here...
  - giantg2 10d ago
    Things taking a year or two was normal, but 8 years is plenty of time. There were long distance publications in many areas of the world even earlier in time. You can look at how every back in the 1700s Benjamin Franklin had a newspaper across the US and routinely corresponded with Europe.
- eddythompson80 10d ago
  Germ theory originated in Europe and it took a couple of decades before the knowledge transfer made it to the US and started getting accepted. It took a while for it to be come generally accepted in Europe too. I'm hazy on the exact dates, but even accepting the 1860 date, it's far too close to 1868 to assume politicians and the general public in the US (or even in Europe in 8 years) would have passed a constitutional amendment with full acceptance or understanding of germ theory.
  - giantg2 10d ago
    It wouldn't have taken decades. Information might have taken a year or two. Decisions on what to do with that may take longer. I find it unlikely that germ theory wasn't known by those involved with the 14th amendment, even though it wasnt based on it.
    - ceejayoz 9d ago
      > It wouldn't have taken decades. We've had vaccination/innoculation for centuries and people still don't accept it.
    - eddythompson80 9d ago
      I’m basing my assumptions based on a book called Rabid which suggested (if memory serves correctly) that the rabies vaccine (developed in 1885) was the one of the early catalysts for the wide acceptance of germ theory among the American public. If you want a random source here is one https://www.civilwarmed.org/germ-theory-civil-war/ https://www.civilwarmed.org/germ-theory-civil-war/ > To his credit, Dr. Lister crossed the Atlantic to deliver a lecture to a hostile American audience to try and convince them of his methods in 1876. > Our own Jake Wynn argues that it wasn’t until the death of President Garfield in 1881 that the American public and physicians began to turn toward germ theory. His slow and painful descent from an assassination attempt was well documented and publicized at the time. There is a difference between information transmission and it getting absorbed into the public opinion and understanding so much that a constitutional amendment would consider it. To go from Joseph Lister’s and Louis Pasteur’s work in the 1860s and think that politicians and the general voting public in the US passing a constitutional amendment that considers it in a handful of years just doesn’t make much sense.
- c6400sc 10d ago
  Yes, because germ theory was accepted immediately by the establishment. Oh wait, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contemporary_reaction_to_Ignaz_Semmelweis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contemporary_reaction_to_Ignaz...
  - giantg2 9d ago
    And this predates by 20 years! Wonder how pastuer faired...
psunavy03 10d ago
So do you or do you not believe the First Amendment protects speech on this website? Or does it only protect quill pens and moveable type printing presses?
- ceejayoz 10d ago
  > So do you or do you not believe the First Amendment protects speech on this website? From the government, yes. From @dang, no. Similarly, I think it's a clear Constitutional violation for a city government to knowingly give people lead poisoning.
hypeatei 10d ago
Machine guns are banned at the federal level, though, and it's been consistently upheld by the courts. I'm not sure I follow the argument anyway; the US constitution consists of negative rights (e.g. freedom to do something) rather than positive rights (e.g. entitlements)
- ceejayoz 10d ago
  > Machine guns are banned at the federal level, though… Semiautomatics, if you prefer. (And plenty of Second Amendment purists feel that limit is unconstitutional, and SCOTUS may well soon agree. As they just did with silencers - https://www.npr.org/2026/08/17/nx-s1-5935562/firearms-law-lapsed-federal-court-ruling https://www.npr.org/2026/08/17/nx-s1-5935562/firearms-law-la...) > I'm not sure I follow the argument anyway; the US constitution consists of negative rights (e.g. freedom to do something) rather than positive rights (e.g. entitlements) That's what the Ninth Amendment is for.
  - candlewaxchewer 10d ago
    The limit on machine guns is unconstitutional and most of the argument against ignore the ninth amendment (e.g founding fathers couldn’t imagine a weapon past the musket, therefor any weapon made after 1776 is illegal) I doubt the ninth amendment applies to entitlements, as these are fundamentally different from liberties
    - ceejayoz 10d ago
      > The limit on machine guns is unconstitutional If so, the argument upthread about "well cholera" fails for similar reasons. > I doubt the ninth amendment applies to entitlements, as these are fundamentally different from liberties The Ninth Amendment doesn't use either term. Just rights. (Which I am, *ahem*, entitled to.)
AustinDev 10d ago
>"the Second Amendment predates machine guns" That statement is false. Repeating firearms like the Puckle gun predate the bill of rights by ~75 years. More importantly, the Founders were hardly unfamiliar with privately owned military firepower. The Constitution expressly authorized Congress to grant letters of marque, and the government commissioned privateers to attack enemy shipping using their cannon-armed privately-owned warships. If you want to change an amendment do it the correct way, repeal it.
- ceejayoz 10d ago
  > The Constitution expressly authorized Congress to grant letters of marque… the government commissioned privateers... So Congress had a certain level of... control? Over guns?
  - AustinDev 10d ago
    I know you're an idealogical zealot but, for anyone else reading. I do find it interesting that the only laws I can find limiting the arming of private vessels were with respect to arming them and then sending them off to fight in foreign wars.[1] [1] Neutrality Act of 1794, §§3–4, 1 Stat. 381, 383
    - ceejayoz 10d ago
      Vessels is a bit of an odd thing to focus on, frankly. I'm largely not allowed to own a fully armed tank, fighter jet, or howitzer. (With a few strictly controlled exceptions; https://www.skiutah.com/blog/authors/lexi/last-gunners-the-conclusion-of-alta1/ https://www.skiutah.com/blog/authors/lexi/last-gunners-the-c...)
      - AustinDev 9d ago
        Cannon-armed Vessels were the pinnacle of military technology at the time the Bill of Rights was authored.
        9d ago
jack_h 10d ago
The second amendment is a pretty well articulated negative right in the same manner as the first or the fourth in the classical liberal school of thought. These are natural rights that individuals have and the bill of rights merely states that these are outside of the government’s sphere. The technology being used whether it be voicing your opinion on the internet, your house being secure from searches with thermal cameras without a warrant, or using modern firearms doesn’t alter the right or the government’s relationship to it. The fourteenth amendment, specifically the due process clause at issue here, says that if the government exercises its power to deprive you of life, liberty, or property it must provide due process. In this case the government was not exercising such a power. It does not say that the government must provide clean water, in which case our understanding of what “clean” means would mirror the technological indifference of the aforementioned rights. Due process clause is just a really bad vehicle for this type of grievance.
- alexgieg 9d ago
  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 9d 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.
Brian_K_White 10d ago
The 14th does not predate germ theory. The 2nd does not predate machine guns. The 1st does predate the internet. And none of these matter because the Constitution deals in principles not details. "This guy was killed with a laser but the law against murder was written after clubs but predates lasers, so it doesn't apply and you can't call this a murder." The ruling sounds correct to me but not because of anything to do with the date that any part of the constitution or ammendment was written.
tzs 10d 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 10d 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 9d 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 9d 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.

giantg2 10d ago

It should just be reckless endangerment criminal charges - they knew it was unsafe and provided it anyways.

cowpig 9d ago

> Plaintiffs allege1 that the City, through a series of acts and failures to act, caused lead to leach into Jackson’s drinking water. City officials then, despite the presence of lead in the water, incorrectly told residents that the water was safe to drink, despite knowing it likely was not. This is the allegation. Doesn't sound much like "the constitution guarantees us safe drinking water," but rather "the constitution says our city government officials can't knowingly poison us and lie about it"