You don't have a right to safe drinking water, US court rules
(www.motherjones.com)
Powderhorn
U.S. NewsOn Friday, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal of a lawsuit against the city of Jackson, Mississippi, which alleged the city knowingly let residents drink lead-contaminated water.
The lawsuit, first filed in 2022, says the contamination violated Jacksonians’ constitutional right to bodily integrity. Donald Trump-appointed judge Kurt Engelhardt disagreed. “The Constitution does not provide redress for every governmental wrongdoing,” Engelhardt said. “Defendants’ actions allegedly deprived Plaintiffs of clean water and guileless information. These deprivations, while grievous, do not infringe upon any deeply rooted constitutional right.”
That may be true in Mississippi—but on the state level in at least nine US states, and in more than a dozen other countries, clean drinking water is in fact a protected right. In countries including Uruguay and South Africa, a right to clean water is enshrined in the constitution. New York’s state constitution, as of a 2021 amendment, states that “each person shall have a right to clean air and water, and a healthful environment.” So too in Massachusetts, where “the right to clean air and water” has been constitutionally protected since 1972.
But according to the Fifth Circuit ruling, the US constitution is too narrow for such a claim. The Jackson plaintiffs alleged that their city government deliberately withheld information about the water’s toxicity, and exacerbated the problem through a series of boil-water notices—a practice that can eliminate some bacterial contamination, but also concentrates lead in water. Engelhardt stated there is no “constitutional right to truthful information from officials during a public health crisis.”
I'm really struggling with:
"The constitution does not provide redress for every governmental wrongdoing."
I would have thought a founding document enumerating the rights of citizens did provide redress for grievances...
It does. The 2nd amendment.
Engelhardt stated there is no “constitutional right to truthful information from officials during a public health crisis.”
What The Actual Fuck is that fuckery?
That judge worded that very badly. It just isn't a constitutional matter. This case seems to pertain to our rights under the constitution. I guess you would have to sue in a different court.
Ah that makes more sense.
We need to stop talking about constitutional rights and start talking about natural or human rights. The constitution is a dead document so relying on it to solve every modern problem is foolish.
It's pretty woke of this administration to rip up the constitution it turns out. Same with it being pretty woke to fuck up the oil supply so we focus on greener energy.
I hate to say it, despite their best efforts, they might just make the world a better place by helping the rest of us fight against hateful tyranny instead of be numbed by status quo tyranny.
In countries including Uruguay and South Africa, a right to clean water is enshrined in the constitution. New York’s state constitution, as of a 2021 amendment, states that “each person shall have a right to clean air and water, and a healthful environment.” So too in Massachusetts, where “the right to clean air and water”
Damn right! It's literally a need.
No constitutional right, sure ... but is there no statutory right? Is there no law against poisoning the water supply and lying about it?
Pretty much all our water has flouride in it anyways so I consider all our water toxic. It sucks that our courts don't actually protect the people anymore
Fluoride in water is good (at amounts not exceeding recommened levels), unless you disagree with with basically every health organization
Yeah I disagree. There's plenty of evidence to show how flouride is bad for you
The dosage is the poison. Basically anything can be harmful if you have the right amount of it.
Not at the dosages found in drinking water. You're on the same level as flat-Earthers and vaccine-deniers.
