post
Well if judges had the right to not be harassed and have their houses burned, it would be in the constitution too!
Elections have consequences, everyone who stayed home and allowed Trump to be elected to two terms has enabled this.
I honestly don’t know if the US will actually be able to recover from those 6 (and counting) years, as an Aussie it feels like we’re watching the equivalent of the Fall of Rome in real time.
That bastard has managed to isolate you from your allies, line his pockets with billions of dollars, nearly bankrupt your country, destroy your military credibility, pollute your water, air & food, roll back your rights, and so much more.
It will take at least a generation to undo this damage, and I don’t think there’s enough political will to do what would need to be done to arrest this decline.
You will likely fall into oligarchy, to become another Russia in my lifetime. Just another regional brute, living off the fear and intimidation you were able to impose on your glory years.
I think it depends on how you define "recover". America will never be what it was.
"old" america is never coming back. it never was. and by 'old' i mean like cold war or obama era, not racist sexist 30's/40's/50's america.
this 'new'/currrent america might stick around for a bit, but it will be strained. it will get to a point where this new america fully breaks and ceases to exist (full civil war 2) and the country will be broken up. either into 2 new countries or breaking completely and all the states becoming their own country, which will invoke more war as states (and even other countries) fight each other for land and resources.
'mostly' world paece was amazing while it lasted. but billionairs didn't make enough money
America will never be what it was.
What it was isn’t as "great" as the stories Americans tell themselves.
They need to build back better.
Unlike Nero, this mad tyrant can't even play a fiddle with his rapey little hands, much less even carry a tune.
But, boy, is the civilization burning...
"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, 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."
Opening line of the Constitution. Pretty sure anything bold could be applied to safe, clean drinking water.
the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals
The judges there regularly issue decisions so far right even SCOTUS won't get on board. "Fifth Circuit" really ought to be in the headline of articles about their ridiculous decisions. It's the Fifth Circuit doing Fifth Circuit things.
In some parts of the world, people are thinking about UBI.
In other parts of the world, having safe drinking water is put into question.
Says right here, "Life, liberty, pursuit of happiness."
Without clean water there's no life. With no life, there's no liberty, and no pursuing happiness.
How do you "promote the general welfare" with filthy, poisonous water?
This is like the most fundamental thing, even Rome provided clean water. We've been surpassed by ancient Rome.
Yes, but- Someone forgot to transfer that line to the constitution. We’re all going to die or become bonded corporate slaves because of an administrative oversight.
Edit: on second thought, maybe the first one was a well-written a call to arms and they knew exactly what they were doing when they wrote the actual charter.
Not sure why I have to be the person in this thread to explain basic civics to everyone, but "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" is from the Declaration of Independence, it is not in the US Constitution.
The Declaration is not law, it was just a declaration. You can't cite it like this, that's not how it works.
It's actually in section 1 of the 14th amendment:
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Life, liberty, or property. No pursuit of happiness to be found.
You still can't have any of those if you don't have drinkable water.
Look, I'm not going to defend this bullshit decision, but humans survived millennia without regulated, clean, drinking water. Yes, some of the lucky ones had life, liberty, and maybe even some property.
They were drinking low % beer because it was safer. For literally thousands of years.
It was an absolute nightmare, and anyone with a working understanding of history knows exactly why we need regulated, clean, drinking water.
But unfortunately, here we are. A legislature that has abdicated it's responsibility in prostrate to a mad king. With a Supreme Court with at least four justices, off the top of my head, that will have no issue poisoning our drinking water. And two more who could go either way.
The problem here is that things like beer will protect you from water born disease, but it will not offer any protection against lead, mercury, and many other heavy metals. Many of these pollutants are either new, or never occurred in as significant amounts as they do now. Also our world is getting hotter, and as a result, dehydration will become even more dangerous than before. The last thing you will want to drink during a heatwave is alcohol, even in small quantities. If you're unlucky like me and can't have alcohol, are especially sensitive to some of these metals, and dehydrate especially easily, then you're royally screwed.
The preamble to US constitition has zero legal bearing on the US. There has never been a legal case in the US where "preamble based natural justice" was accepted as a legitimate basis for complaint. If your complaint was only based on the preamble, normal judicial practice would be to dismiss it as frivolous, and force you to pay defendants' court costs.
That’s not even in the preamble of the constitution, that quote is from the Declaration of Independence. It also went on to say all men were created equal forgetting slavery
Well it does explain that the enumerated rights are a non-exclusive, non-exhaustive list. So while it doesn’t have any direct legal weight, it certainly explains how they expected the document to be interpreted
"Oh look at me, I'm an entitled American. I want water to drink and to not be lied to. Wha Wha Wha"
You give people this and they'll start asking for healthcare next instead of just dying in the street with pride.
Bunch of greedy entitled fucks.
*Nestle enters the chat
Who invited Steven Miller to this thread?
What exactly do Americans have the right to...?
Nothing unless they are rich.
Nothing unless it's in the constitution. Judge is technically correct.
We should probably change that.
If only the US had integrated the Universal Declaration of Human Rights into law. It's only 78 years old. Guess they haven't had time yet.
Article 25
Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services,
Oh, it was a conservative deciding this. This tracks.
Then what is the point of governance?
Ofc not. This colony was founded by literal enslavers. It's hard to enslave a comfortable population with their basic needs met. No water, no food, no shelter, no healthcare... Instead it's "freeze peach" and corporate personhood.
Do Americans have any rights anymore?
Sooooo... Abortion is cool, right? Either they're humans and not entitled to the necessities to live, or they're not humans and can have separate constitutional rights.
Or maybe there's a third option here? Is there something special about people from Jackson, Mississippi that would preclude them from enjoying constitutional/human rights?
What about the water youre paying for that had the implied value of being safe. Being defrauded by a group selling the water is a crime and every customer should have access to what they are paying for.
Mississippi law provides civil immunity to cities for certain liability, including negligence. So I assume they brought the constitutional claim because they couldn't bring a negligence claim. But if you think that is bad, consider how much more immunity law enforcement has.
Edit: also, fraud is usually a legal term in most states, relating to altering business documents like contracts, receipts, and ledgers with intent to profit.
It shouldn’t have been a “right to safe drinking water”, it’s an assumption of risk issue. The default setting in the US for a few generations is that the tap water is safe to drink. This reeeally smells like a malicious ruling.
Yeah lets wrap this US gov up at this point. No right to clean water and the truth lol.
When some rights you should have aren't given to you, you need to do something to make sure you take them.
That is some 3rd World shit right there. Hire a plumber to reroute that asswipe's water supply.
Spirit of bill of rights, even if it didn't say so explicitly, would include "Government shall not kill you for no reason, or tell you that killing you is good for you". Bill of rights is weak, because, rightfully speech that "falsely yells fire in a crowded theater" should be infringed/persecuted. But speech where the government/puppet media tells you "this is fine, when theater/contry is on fire" is far more dangerous, when entire oligarchy/zionist stooge establishment reinforces the lies.
US citizens are unwittingly time travelling back to a palaeolithic style of life. You want the government to provide clean water? “F**k you!” replies Uncle Sam
This absolutely needs to be the next amendment added to the Constitution.
We can’t get an amendment to say women get fair and equal protection. You expect something to pass that helps black communities?
We need a wholly new Constitution. The old one had many good ideas, but the implementation and a lack of lessons learned is rendering it useless.
This is pretty fucking obvious to anyone who has received a water bill.
our public utility used to include reports from regular testing in with the bills.. they make them available online now (cost saving, it was a specially-printed multi-page insert before), but it's still public information.
A water bill is so the treatment plants can continue running at utmost capacity.
Should that just be tied into municipal taxes? Maybe. You're not paying for clean water, you're paying for the system and the people who help keep it clean.
You are paying for wealth extraction. Ftfy
I mean, I own my home and I don't have a water bill so I'm personally not paying for anything. But it's the same as power, your Internet, etc. You're paying for not only the item you're receiving but also for the service it gets to you, and the service to keep it up and running.
I pay for a plumber to come and fix my pipes. The money I pay them doesn't just pay for the service I received, the company also uses some of that to hire more people, improve their training, upgrade their equipment, etc.
Well, he's sorta right. It's not explicitly in the text (though, one could argue it would maybe come from the 9th Amendment). The basis for the Clean Water Act and the EPA would arise out of Congress's power to promote a general welfare combined with regulating interstate commerce.


top 98 comments