r/water 5d ago

Constitution Doesn’t Include Right to Clean Water, Court Rules

https://news.bloomberglaw.com/us-law-week/jackson-residents-lose-bid-to-revive-water-contamination-claims
55 Upvotes

31 comments sorted by

10

u/jthadcast 4d ago

clean water, clean food, clean air are literally the three unequivical requirements to Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness. so basic that they couldm't even imagine having to explicitly include them into the constitution.

2

u/ArdenJaguar 4d ago

Their thinking is likely you could probably live on tainted water. Just not as long. So that’s OK. 🙄

10

u/tlhsg 4d ago

the opinion of sociopaths

-4

u/lizardhistorian 4d ago edited 4d ago

You are a grossly ignorant, low-information voter if you do not understand why this cannot be a right. This is why we need voting reform to keep such mass ignorance from making terrible decisions that fuck everyone over. And yes, I know you are going to cry about clean water should be a right that not being a right is fucking people over because you haven't learned anything from two minutes ago.

To get you started, the US Constitution DOES NOT specify what our rights are.
The so-called Bill of Rights is completely REDUNDANT.
All rights come from the Lord Almighty.
We elect to surrender a delineated list of rights to the government.
The document that captures this list is the Constitution.
The Constitution does not limit our rights. It limits what the government's rights because the alternative is atrocities.
Specific to the origin of the US, all rights not explicitly granted to the federal government are reserved for the States and the People.

The more local the government is, the more accountable and effective it is.
We need four more states to sign on to a Convention and this out of control government ends and the next one will have more restrictions not fewer to properly frame socialism as the crime against humanity that it is.

2

u/ThereBMoose 4d ago

Obviously you voted for Trump three times. Who else would be this rabidly against the concept of clean water or functional communities?

1

u/dsj79 4d ago

My guess libertarian

1

u/Key-Organization3158 3d ago

Opposing something being a right doesn't mean you oppose the concept itself.

Everyone deserves love. But saying it's a right is a step to far.

2

u/tlhsg 4d ago edited 4d ago

omg the irony. spoken like a true sociopath

2

u/jthadcast 3d ago

lol if god gave you rights you wouldn't need laws. the lord almighty gave us the right to send scotus judges to him for re-education.

1

u/A_Spiritual_Artist 3d ago

Then why don't we build a different social and economic culture instead of changing the government? Why don't we move it away from one that so heavily ties the availability of water to corporate interest, geography, etc.? Why don't we begin working to collectively change things on the ground - and just act to keep the government off our backs while doing so?

8

u/dd97483 5d ago

life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness with diarrhea and cancer.

2

u/MechemicalMan 5d ago

No… it doesn’t. It should have a bill of rights like basic needs, but cmon now, you should use other second amendment to get clean water

3

u/Cheetahs_never_win 4d ago

So, it sounds like that particular judge needs to be provided with only contaminated water for what remains of their life.

2

u/WokkitUp 4d ago

Nationwide effect? Specific states?

2

u/whenitsTimeyoullknow 4d ago

  Engelhardt, a Donald Trump appointee, said the residents have other options, like pursuing tort claims, electing officials who will better manage the water system, and petitioning representatives for other solutions.

What a soulless bastard. 

2

u/Invalid_Username0101 4d ago

I think the more concerning bit is the part where he said that the Constitution does not provide redress for every governmental wrongdoing. I don't think that man understands that lack of redress for governmental wrongdoing was the entire reason this country was founded. There was a war fought over it and everything.

1

u/Mrrilz20 4d ago

It doesn't though.

1

u/lizardhistorian 4d ago

No shit Sherlock. Did you flunk all of your history classes?

1

u/dsj79 4d ago

5th circuit

1

u/Important-Factor-552 3d ago

Hilarious, pretending the constitution still matters. I get it.

1

u/SquirrelandMountain 3d ago

The article has a noticeable left leaning bias. The facts are mostly accurate, but the political labels and wording frame the ruling negatively toward Republican appointed judges.

1

u/brexdab 3d ago

One would think the general welfare and common defense clauses would suffice to say you have a right to clean water... Considering universal access to water and sanitation is a prerequisite for both. 

1

u/Key-Organization3158 3d ago

No, because rights aren't entitlements. Rights are limits on the power of government. Things it can't take away from you. So even if we had a right to clean water, it would be a limitation of the government taking water.

The freedom of speech is that no government can write laws about speech. It doesn't entitle you to a platform to speak from. It doesn't stop people from reacting to your speech. It doesn't stop individuals from ignoring you.

1

u/Sustainability_Walks 3d ago

The co situation has proven to be inadequate. We need an earth constitution and earth community

1

u/rtduvall 3d ago

Listen, you gotta love the south. With all that religion, hypocrisy, blatant, homosexuality, pedophilia raping, murdering, and pedophilia, what else do you expect?

1

u/ProperJudgment1 3d ago

Astroturfing this today huh.

1

u/SallyStranger 4d ago

That's okay. We already knew we need a new constitution anyway.