• obvs@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    45 minutes ago

    Hmmm…

    Sounds like people might be better off if there was a different constitution.

  • chicken@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    12
    ·
    2 hours ago

    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?

  • Nobody@anarchist.nexus
    cake
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    17
    ·
    4 hours ago

    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.

  • ignirtoq@feddit.online
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    9
    ·
    4 hours ago

    "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?

  • Godort@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    97
    ·
    7 hours ago

    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.

      • turtlesareneat@piefed.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 hour ago

        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

      • BooBees@fedinsfw.app
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        3 hours ago

        Wrong, the courts have ruled that corporations are people and the earth and future belongs to them now. Guh.

    • WhatAmLemmy@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      edit-2
      4 hours ago

      Like “states rights”, what they really mean is “localized tyranny”. They only wish it to be the law of the land when it aligns with 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.

      To any fascist, dictator, or authoritarian the rule of law is nothing more than a rope to hang you with. It does not apply to them; only to their opposition.

  • diverging@piefed.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    14
    ·
    5 hours ago

    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.

  • veryblandusername@fedinsfw.app
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    4 hours ago

    " “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.

    • Tikiporch@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      2 hours ago

      The second amendment is only used to justify buying guns (it’s a cultural identity thing), not use them against the government.

  • cosmicgorilla@lemmy.sdf.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    36
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    6 hours ago

    "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, promoting the general welfare of Americans would probably include clean water. Just my opinion though.

    • BillyClark@piefed.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      3 hours ago

      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.

    • Telodzrum@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      5 hours ago

      The Preamble is not substantive. It dies not convey rights or restrict powers. It is an introductory statement, not a controlling section.

  • Sanctus@anarchist.nexus
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    51
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    7 hours ago

    Why are we making a piece of paper that was supposed to be living into a monument to all of our sins?

    • ramble81@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      2 hours ago

      Because they worship another set of papers (the bible) like a be all end all and they can’t fathom the concept of a living document. It is written and so must be set in stone and interpreted literally.

    • NotSteve_@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      edit-2
      4 hours ago

      Americans have a fucking bizarre obsession with their founding that gives cult vibes

      edit: like “founding fathers”? Really? And a fucking mountain with their faces carved into them? North Korea doesn’t even go that far

  • Blue@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    15
    ·
    6 hours ago

    Is the original 1700s US constitution the only thing Americans live by? Everything else doesn’t matter??

  • HotsauceHurricane@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    7
    ·
    5 hours ago

    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 .

    • huppakee@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      5 hours ago

      Can someone please use their time machine to tell the founding fathers even ‘general welfare’ is not precise enough?

      • Em Adespoton@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        4 hours ago

        It’s obviously Trump’s friend Hank Welfare, who he just appointed a general in the army.

        Now the government has to promote him.

    • Drusas@fedia.io
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      40 minutes ago

      People act like amending it is sacrilege, when that’s what it was designed for.

    • huppakee@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      5 hours ago

      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.