It is a human right, tho: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_right_to_water_and_sanitation
Hunan rights is socialism (Or communism IDFK)
Well, USA has always treated those as something to break, rather than follow.
Hmmm…
Sounds like people might be better off if there was a different constitution.
Residents of the city have claimed that officials deliberately allowed lead to contaminate the drinking water, harming those who drank it. Jackson has denied those allegations.
Engelhardt said while the residents raised a right to bodily integrity, that right applies in instances like sexual assault by a police officer and forced medication of prisoners. Mismanagement of a water system, he said, is “wholly different.”
Oh so if people are intentionally poisoning you, damaging your body, it’s a different legal category just because they did it to many people at once?
forced medication of prisoners
Yeah, introducing an unwanted chemical into a prisoner’s body is totally different from… introducing an unwanted chemical into a non-prisoner’s body.
" “The Constitution does not provide redress for every governmental wrongdoing,” Engelhardt said"
It absolutely does, the second amendment is exactly the citizens redress to government run tyranical.
The second amendment is only used to justify buying guns (it’s a cultural identity thing), not use them against the government.
Yeah, folk who buy guns fantasizing about using them against the government are exactly the people who shouldn’t be buying guns
"The Constitution does not provide redress for every governmental wrongdoing,” Engelhardt said.
Why the eff not?! How are people supposed to get redress for government wrongdoing then? Is he saying there is a nonzero amount of wrongdoing the public is just supposed to accept from their government?
The anti-federalists, who were against the constitution and the Bill of rights, were against it in part because they said that one day people would believe that the bill of rights outlined the only rights that existed, instead of defaulting toward people’s rights over government tyranny in general.
The federalists said that was ridiculous, won the debate, and were the early leaders of America. Now, there’s an issue because the word “privacy” isn’t explicitly stated in the bill of rights.
Another user pointed out the 9th amendment, which states just that. Basically, “just because we didn’t list something doesn’t mean it isn’t someone’s right”
I assume they added the 9th amendment specifically because what you are discussing
The ninth was not well written enough to be proof against legalistic oblivion. The anti-feds were basically right
The Clean Water act was some misleading BS wasn’t it
I feel like the country has forgotten about the ninth amendment.
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Just because it isn’t explicit, doesn’t mean that it isn’t still a right.
The people who avoided drinking water in favor of beer? No, I doubt they envisioned widespread government-sponsored clean water systems in the first place let alone the society we’ve since become unable to maintain such systems. Enjoy your obscenely expensive bottled dead water.
I mean, maybe not the main document. but the Preamble states “promote the general welfare” right fucking there. Its in the first fucking sentence of the constitution .
Can someone please use their time machine to tell the founding fathers even ‘general welfare’ is not precise enough?
It’s obviously Trump’s friend Hank Welfare, who he just appointed a general in the army.
Now the government has to promote him.
Clearly we need to make the constitution protect the right to housing, clean food, and, clean water
Fun fact: While developed nations feel the need to provide their subjects with the globally recognized human rights the UN wrote down, US leadership only feels the need to provide their corporations with ways to make money.
Is the original 1700s US constitution the only thing Americans live by? Everything else doesn’t matter??
It’s the one we struggle with. The reconstruction amendments remade it and conservatives really don’t like that.
To the ret*rded - sorry- conservative ones, yes.
"The Preamble
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."
Idk man, prompting the general welfare of Americans would probably include clean water. Just my opinion though.
You forgot the part where it only applies to white cis male land owners.
The Constitution sometimes says the purpose of laws. You’ve shown the preamble. Another one I’m familiar with is in the Copyright Clause, where it says the purpose is to promote the progress of useful science and arts. Another is the “well-regulated militia” clause of the 2nd Amendment.
I’m not a lawyer, but as far as I can tell, Constitutional scholars today don’t think those parts have much, if any, legal weight at all. It’s like, the other parts are the important things, and the “why” is just to give context.
I think this is exactly backwards. Whenever the Constitution says “why”, that’s the most important part. Those parts set a standard by which the laws can each be tested, and inserts a lot of objectivity.
I mean, “promote the general welfare” is almost exactly a description of utilitarianism. If a law makes people generally worse off, then it should be unconstitutional on that basis alone.
If I was rewriting the Constitution, rather than specific laws, it would consist almost entirely of the goals of the government (such as having a democracy that reflects the will of citizens), and the rest of the Constitution would mostly list the legal rights of citizens. Laws would have to say in what measurable way they’re getting closer to the goals, and they’d become invalid if they didn’t live up to the measure. Any laws that moved us farther from our ideals would not be allowed.
Welfare is socialism.
The Preamble is not substantive. It dies not convey rights or restrict powers. It is an introductory statement, not a controlling section.
That’s explaining the purpose of the document. It’s not any of its provisions.
I mean… if they could read, they’d be very upset
I mean, they’re right. The Constitution does not cover the right to clean water.
It does not mean that clean water should not be guaranteed in some other legally binding piece of legislation. The Constitution is not the only source of law in the country, as much as Beer Kavanaugh wishes it was.
The Earth belongs to the living.
The dead had their time, they have zero say now.
The living own the earth… the living fascists who purport to be the only ones capable of divining the founders’ intent and insist it be done in the vacuum of our contemporary understanding of the founders unless it agrees with their wishes and then it’s the only thing that matters
Wrong, the courts have ruled that corporations are people and the earth and future belongs to them now. Guh.
Like “states rights”, they only wish it to be the law of the land when it benefits their tyranny and fascism… because they are sociopathic traitorous criminals who do not value the meaning of words beyond the power and control it grants them in bad faith.
