6 ms·

> The Preamble explicitly states that the Constitution is for these six things. The Constitution establishes the Federal government. Not state, county, city, m

by pdonis 9d ago

> The Preamble explicitly states that the Constitution is for these six things. The Constitution establishes the Federal government. Not state, county, city, municipal governments. It says what the Federal government is for. Not what those other levels of government are for. The Federal government isn't the government that failed to provide clean water in this case; it's not even responsible for providing city water in the first place, city governments are.

cocacola1 9d ago
The Fourteenth Amendment explicitly constrains states, and those constitutional restrictions apply to state and local government action.
- pdonis 9d ago
  > The Fourteenth Amendment explicitly constrains states It says states can't make laws that abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens. It does not say states have to provide whatever services citizens would like to have.
  - ceejayoz 9d ago
    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 9d ago
      [deleted]
    - pdonis 9d 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 9d 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 5d 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.
  - cocacola1 9d ago
    If a city chooses to operate a water system, that’s still subject to the Fourteenth Amendment. The Fourteenth Amendment constrains state and local government action. And the Preamble's "general Welfare" is relevant interpretive context. At the Founding, that meant the safety, prosperity, happiness, and well being of the political community. So the question isn't whether the Constitution requires cities to provide water, but whether a city that allegedly poisons people through the water system it operates can violate constitutionally protected interests in life, liberty, or bodily integrity.
    - pdonis 9d ago
      The city is not a State. The Fourteenth Amendment says that States shall not abridge the privileges and immunities of citizens. As the court's opinion points out (and as others have pointed out in this thread), there are plenty of other legal remedies that can be sought against a city government that allegedly poisons its people through its water system, including voting them out of office and bringing tort claims against them.
      - cocacola1 9d ago
        A city is a state actor for Fourteenth Amendment purposes. The Supreme Court has applied the Fourteenth Amendment to municipal action since at least Yick Wo, and municipalities can be sued under §1983 for constitutional violations caused by official policy. And "you can vote them out or sue in tort" doesn't answer the constitutional question. The availability of other remedies does not make an otherwise unconstitutional government action constitutional. Also, the Fourteenth Amendment does considerably more than prohibit abridging privileges or immunities. It expressly prohibits states from depriving any person of life, liberty, or property without due process and from denying equal protection.
        pdonis 5d ago
        > The Supreme Court has applied the Fourteenth Amendment to municipal action since at least Yick Wo That case was about a city ordinance (true, a city ordinance, not a State law that the city was enforcing, so that much is a fair point) that was inequitably enforced (non-Chinese got permits, Chinese didn't, with no other material facts being different). It was not the city providing a service itself. > It expressly prohibits states from depriving any person of life, liberty, or property without due process This refers to civil suits or criminal prosecutions, not the government providing services.
ceejayoz 9d ago
> The Constitution establishes the Federal government. Not state, county, city, municipal governments. This is about a hundred years out of date. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incorporation_of_the_Bill_of_Rights https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incorporation_of_the_Bill_of_R...
- pdonis 9d ago
  Incorporation of the Bill of Rights doesn't extend any powers granted by the Constitution to the Federal government, to state, county, city, etc. governments. It just says those governments (well, the State governments, since the Amendment only explicitly says "States", but other local governments when they are implementing or enforcing State statutes) also have to respect the Bill of Rights when they exercise the powers they already had. The Constitution did not establish those other governments. They were already there.
  - ceejayoz 9d ago
    > also have to respect the Bill of Rights The Bill of Rights is just the first ten. Incorporation has been extended far further than that. Per the link: "However, the post–Civil War era, beginning in 1865 with the Thirteenth Amendment, which declared the abolition of slavery, gave rise to the incorporation of other amendments, applying more rights to the states and people over time." > The Constitution did not establish those other governments. But it does constrain them. They agreed to that when they ratified the Constitution and joined the United States.

by pdonis 9d ago

cocacola1 9d ago

The Fourteenth Amendment explicitly constrains states, and those constitutional restrictions apply to state and local government action.

pdonis 9d ago
> The Fourteenth Amendment explicitly constrains states It says states can't make laws that abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens. It does not say states have to provide whatever services citizens would like to have.
- ceejayoz 9d ago
  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 9d ago
    [deleted]
  - pdonis 9d 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 9d 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 5d 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.
- cocacola1 9d ago
  If a city chooses to operate a water system, that’s still subject to the Fourteenth Amendment. The Fourteenth Amendment constrains state and local government action. And the Preamble's "general Welfare" is relevant interpretive context. At the Founding, that meant the safety, prosperity, happiness, and well being of the political community. So the question isn't whether the Constitution requires cities to provide water, but whether a city that allegedly poisons people through the water system it operates can violate constitutionally protected interests in life, liberty, or bodily integrity.
  - pdonis 9d ago
    The city is not a State. The Fourteenth Amendment says that States shall not abridge the privileges and immunities of citizens. As the court's opinion points out (and as others have pointed out in this thread), there are plenty of other legal remedies that can be sought against a city government that allegedly poisons its people through its water system, including voting them out of office and bringing tort claims against them.
    - cocacola1 9d ago
      A city is a state actor for Fourteenth Amendment purposes. The Supreme Court has applied the Fourteenth Amendment to municipal action since at least Yick Wo, and municipalities can be sued under §1983 for constitutional violations caused by official policy. And "you can vote them out or sue in tort" doesn't answer the constitutional question. The availability of other remedies does not make an otherwise unconstitutional government action constitutional. Also, the Fourteenth Amendment does considerably more than prohibit abridging privileges or immunities. It expressly prohibits states from depriving any person of life, liberty, or property without due process and from denying equal protection.
      - pdonis 5d ago
        > The Supreme Court has applied the Fourteenth Amendment to municipal action since at least Yick Wo That case was about a city ordinance (true, a city ordinance, not a State law that the city was enforcing, so that much is a fair point) that was inequitably enforced (non-Chinese got permits, Chinese didn't, with no other material facts being different). It was not the city providing a service itself. > It expressly prohibits states from depriving any person of life, liberty, or property without due process This refers to civil suits or criminal prosecutions, not the government providing services.

ceejayoz 9d ago

> The Constitution establishes the Federal government. Not state, county, city, municipal governments. This is about a hundred years out of date. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incorporation_of_the_Bill_of_Rights https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incorporation_of_the_Bill_of_R...

pdonis 9d ago
Incorporation of the Bill of Rights doesn't extend any powers granted by the Constitution to the Federal government, to state, county, city, etc. governments. It just says those governments (well, the State governments, since the Amendment only explicitly says "States", but other local governments when they are implementing or enforcing State statutes) also have to respect the Bill of Rights when they exercise the powers they already had. The Constitution did not establish those other governments. They were already there.
- ceejayoz 9d ago
  > also have to respect the Bill of Rights The Bill of Rights is just the first ten. Incorporation has been extended far further than that. Per the link: "However, the post–Civil War era, beginning in 1865 with the Thirteenth Amendment, which declared the abolition of slavery, gave rise to the incorporation of other amendments, applying more rights to the states and people over time." > The Constitution did not establish those other governments. But it does constrain them. They agreed to that when they ratified the Constitution and joined the United States.