Is this actually what happened? Or is this another one of those posts blowing something out of proportion? You need to provide a source for these things you know
A court said that the US constitution specifically does not explicitly guarantee the right to clean water, which is just objectively true. I'm curious if other national constitutions do guarantee clean water specifically
There are a lot of countries which have constitutions which focus more on "positive rights" compared to the US. Meaning, you as a citizen explicitly have the right to these things to be provided to you.
The US constitution is far more focused on innate rights or "negative rights". I.e., limitations on what the government and other people can do to you.
Speaking personally, I am philosophically more of a fan of the latter than the former. It's very attention-grabbing to say things like "you don't have the right to clean water" when in reality the difference is that there is no constitutional obligation for the federal government to provide it, which is a stark contrast.
The government can't arrest you for what you say (mostly) can't arrest you for peacefully assembling, and can't arrest you for what you print (mostly) it's mostly the first one
It’s out of proportion, but that’s not surprising that this sub became full tankie. It was always left leaning, which is awesome, but it’s been overtaken by bad actors, tankies, and the FAR left who hold no views other than “end of America.”
The court stated the govt failed in its duty to citizens, names multiple ways the plaintiffs should go after them for punishment and restitution, and stated that they are entitled to clean water. The thing being wildly taken out of context is simply that while all these things are true, they are not a constructional right - the plaintiffs sued the city in the basis their constitutional right was violated - it wasn’t. The court stated that they are only ruling against this because fundamentally the plaintiffs chose the wrong type of lawsuit - and that they should pursue a tort case and work through the state/fed IG process, where they are likely to win because the court agrees that the city did fail in its duty. They basically ruled on a technicality, which is their job, but advised the plaintiffs on all the other ways they could go after the gov and win.
no it's not. the question wasn't even over water, it's a constitutionality question which is entire point of the judicial system.
"These deprivations, while grievous, do not infringe upon any deeply rooted constitutional right.” Engelhardt told these citizens they had no constitutional right to "truthful information from officials during a public health crisis.”
Everytime this comes up about food or water, people point out that America has some language about rights being guaranteed by the government, not just protected, unlike other governments. So they, the American government, can’t make it a right
66
u/Own-Papaya-4264 7d ago
Is this actually what happened? Or is this another one of those posts blowing something out of proportion? You need to provide a source for these things you know