Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Wrong. Where did you learn this claptrap?
United States Bill of Rights - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Why don't you do a little research before you post? I did.
The original Bill of Rights consisted of 12 amendments. Only 10 were adopted immediately. One was adopted 200 years later and the last has never been adopted.
Different amendments were written by different people. Some were concerned with freedom of religion, other with freedom of speech and the press.
Nobody ever said that the Bill of rights encapsulated a complete list of all rights that people will ever have.
You are starting to sound like a fool. Is that on purpose?
Here is the transcript of the Constitution:
Transcript of the Constitution of the United States - Official Text
And here is the transcript of the Bill of Rights amendments:
Bill of Rights Transcript Text
I dare you to cite for me the enumerated rights that you are talking about. Please provide me the list from the actual transcript.
The answer is that all rights - even those enumerated in the Bill of Rights - are limited. The supreme court has repeatedly stated that there is no such thing as an unlimited right.
IF there was a Right to Health Care, it would be a limited right - based on what level of Health Care could be provided given the medical resources and respected (not infringing on) the rights of medical professionals.
For example, a person who has had a heart attack may be entitled, by right, to be resuscitated, but pending the availability of medical resources, they may not have the right to triple bypass surgery.
The biggest challenge to the notion of Health Care being a right is delineating the exact limits of that right.
In some ways the medical professionals have already set de facto standards for the existence and limitations on people's rights to Health Care. I don't know if they have clearly codified these or whether it's left up to the discretion of indivdual medical professionals.
This strikes me as hopelessly subjective. In any case, I wonder if you'd advocate for all of life's necessities as 'rights' in that case? Food, shelter, clothing, transportation?
As I said, I can conceive of health care as a service that government might provide - much as it provides basic education - but it makes no sense as a 'right'. Neither does education, fwiw. To claim that a product or service is a right is to fundamentally misunderstand what political rights are all about. They are freedoms, not guarantees of service.
I agree that the right to Health care is hopelessly subjective. However that does not mean that it should not be a right simply because it's hard to define.
As far as other basic necessities, these would fall under the basic right to life mentioned in the declaration of independence. Most courts would agree that a person does have the right to steal a loaf of bread if they are starving, to break into a building if they are in fear of dying from exposure. Most municipal governments do provide food, shelter, clothing and (if it's a necessity) transportation because most people do feel that everyone should have a right to these.
These are not enumerated in the constitution because of the complexity and limits of providing these.
United States Bill of Rights - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Why don't you do a little research before you post? I did.
The original Bill of Rights consisted of 12 amendments. Only 10 were adopted immediately. One was adopted 200 years later and the last has never been adopted.
Different amendments were written by different people. Some were concerned with freedom of religion, other with freedom of speech and the press.
Nobody ever said that the Bill of rights encapsulated a complete list of all rights that people will ever have.
You are starting to sound like a fool. Is that on purpose?
Here is the transcript of the Constitution:
Transcript of the Constitution of the United States - Official Text
And here is the transcript of the Bill of Rights amendments:
Bill of Rights Transcript Text
I dare you to cite for me the enumerated rights that you are talking about. Please provide me the list from the actual transcript.
You are apparently not reading closely. I said "Nobody ever said that the Bill of rights encapsulated a complete list of all rights that people will ever have."
So you're challenging me to provide you with a list which I just said did not exist.
Try to read more carefully before responding.
>> It is only thru this process that we have these rights.
The bill of rights, do not include rights. They are not rights. Therefore, it does not follow that "only thru this process" do we have these rights, since in fact the bill merely describes a list of restrictions on the government about how the feds can't take our rights. That does not mean your contradicting statements are also true, that such amendments are the only process by which our rights are outlined. For it is not by these amendments that our rights come forth. If you believe that then you are not the strong minded individual you may think you are.
As to the process, the process has practically nothing to do with our rights, but rather codifies the way in which amendments are made and approved for the Constitution.
Nay. I say to you our rights are god given inalienable rights. It is only through a lack of courage by each individual that we loose our rights.
You or the government, can try to take my right to free speech away, but if I don't agree to it, and I continue to speak any which way I desire, then my right to speak has not been taken from me. Only if you are successful in killing me or putting me in jail, will you be able to take my right to speech away. That said some will loose their rights by cowering or with thunderous applause, such as when Obama declared he would change every single thing about this country.
By the same logic, you could say that we have an inalienable right to commit murder and that only by killing me or putting me in jail can you deprive me of that right.
Having rights does not mean that you can do whatever you want.
Of course not. But, strictly speaking, the freedom to commit murder IS an inalienable right. Just not one that we'd protect with government because it contradicts another's right to live. This is something everybody seems to get wrong (except me, of course).
Saying that a given freedom is 'inalienable' doesn't mean it's sacrosanct and government shall never violate it. It's merely describing the nature of the freedom - specifically that it's a natural by-product of human free will. It's simply classifying some freedoms as innate, and something that you're born with by virtue of having human will. When Jefferson cited the protection of inalieanable rights as a purpose of government, he wasn't saying ALL inalienable rights. I don't believe his purpose there was even to specify any set of rights that government should protect, but rather to classify the kinds of rights government should protect. eg innate freedoms. He did this deliberately to contrast them with rights that are grants from government - which was the more common conception of rights at the time -privileges handed down by the King. In other words, he was saying government wasn't there to hand out perks, it was there to protect freedom.
If you followed all that without rejecting it entirely, then perhaps you can see why it makes no sense to call something like health care a right, even if it is a service government ends up providing.
This strikes me as hopelessly subjective. In any case, I wonder if you'd advocate for all of life's necessities as 'rights' in that case? Food, shelter, clothing, transportation?
As I said, I can conceive of health care as a service that government might provide - much as it provides basic education - but it makes no sense as a 'right'. Neither does education, fwiw. To claim that a product or service is a right is to fundamentally misunderstand what political rights are all about. They are freedoms, not guarantees of service.
I agree that the right to Health care is hopelessly subjective. However that does not mean that it should not be a right simply because it's hard to define.
As far as other basic necessities, these would fall under the basic right to life mentioned in the declaration of independence. Most courts would agree that a person does have the right to steal a loaf of bread if they are starving, to break into a building if they are in fear of dying from exposure. Most municipal governments do provide food, shelter, clothing and (if it's a necessity) transportation because most people do feel that everyone should have a right to these.
These are not enumerated in the constitution because of the complexity and limits of providing these.
Wrong again. Clearly you have not read the Constitution, or if you did you are incapable of understanding it or talking about it without making false straw-man statements. See section 8 for an "enumerated" set of powers given to the federal government.
By the same logic, you could say that we have an inalienable right to commit murder and that only by killing me or putting me in jail can you deprive me of that right.
Having rights does not mean that you can do whatever you want.
Of course not. But, strictly speaking, the freedom to commit murder IS an inalienable right. Just not one that we'd protect with government because it contradicts another's right to live. This is something everybody seems to get wrong (except me, of course
Saying that a given freedom is 'inalienable' doesn't mean it's sacrosanct and government shall never violate it. It's merely describing the nature of the freedom - specifically that it's a natural by-product of human free will. It's simply classifying some freedoms as innate, and something that you're born with by virtue of having human will. When Jefferson cited the protection of inalieanable rights as a purpose of government, he wasn't saying ALL inalienable rights. I don't believe his purpose there was even to specify any set of rights that government should protect, but rather to classify the kinds of rights government should protect. eg innate freedoms. He did this deliberately to contrast them with rights that are grants from government - which was the more common conception of rights at the time -privileges handed down by the King. In other words, he was saying government wasn't there to hand out perks, it was there to protect freedom.
If you followed all that without rejecting it entirely, then perhaps you can see why it makes no sense to call something like health care a right, even if it is a service government ends up providing.
First, your statement that :
"It's simply classifying some freedoms as innate, and something that you're born with by virtue of having human will."
Would invalidate the Right to bear arms, since no one is born with a gun. Somehow (I'd guess by that cowboy hat), that you would not agree with.
Thomas Jefferson may have been the first to state that rights were inalienable, but he also used the clause "among these are", which indicates that the rights listed in the declaration were not the only inalienable rights. The full list is indeterminate.
I see, so I cite to section 8, and in response you say that is a gross misinterpretation, and to prove that you cite to section 8.I agree that the right to Health care is hopelessly subjective. However that does not mean that it should not be a right simply because it's hard to define.
As far as other basic necessities, these would fall under the basic right to life mentioned in the declaration of independence. Most courts would agree that a person does have the right to steal a loaf of bread if they are starving, to break into a building if they are in fear of dying from exposure. Most municipal governments do provide food, shelter, clothing and (if it's a necessity) transportation because most people do feel that everyone should have a right to these.
These are not enumerated in the constitution because of the complexity and limits of providing these.
Wrong again. Clearly you have not read the Constitution, or if you did you are incapable of understanding it or talking about it without making false straw-man statements. See section 8 for an "enumerated" set of powers given to the federal government.
That is a gross misinterpretation of the Constitution that the Supreme court has rejected time and again. The responsibilities of government are defined in Section 8. Those powers in section 8 exist so that government may fulfill it's responsibilities.
The very reason for the existence of government and it's reponsibilities are given in the preamble:
"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"
Would invalidate the Right to bear arms, since no one is born with a gun. Somehow (I'd guess by that cowboy hat), that you would not agree with.
Would invalidate the Right to bear arms, since no one is born with a gun. Somehow (I'd guess by that cowboy hat), that you would not agree with.
I see, so I cite to section 8, and in response you say that is a gross misinterpretation, and to prove that you cite to section 8.Wrong again. Clearly you have not read the Constitution, or if you did you are incapable of understanding it or talking about it without making false straw-man statements. See section 8 for an "enumerated" set of powers given to the federal government.
That is a gross misinterpretation of the Constitution that the Supreme court has rejected time and again. The responsibilities of government are defined in Section 8. Those powers in section 8 exist so that government may fulfill it's responsibilities.
The very reason for the existence of government and it's reponsibilities are given in the preamble:
"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"
Then you backtrack on your statement that "[t]hese are not enumerated in the constitution because of the complexity and limits of providing these" by subsequently providing some limited amount of evidence that "these are enumerated in the Constitution."
Do you have a split personality?
Would invalidate the Right to bear arms, since no one is born with a gun. Somehow (I'd guess by that cowboy hat), that you would not agree with.
So basically you don't know what the terms keep and bear mean in the phrase "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
"Rights" are defined by society, so the fact that so many people believe healthcare to be a "right" is, in a way, what makes it a "right".
Most of the civilized world considers healthcare a right
Only Republucans disagree
Health care insurance started going downhill in this country during the Great Depression and World War II, despite the numerous technical advances that were made during that period.
Then-President FDR clamped huge restrictions onto many parts of the economy during the Depression (resulting in that depression stretching out further than any ever had in world history), and they became even worse during WWII. One of them was wage and price controls, which became onerous as many able-bodied men joined the armed services to fight in the war.
Attracting talented people to fulfill the jobs they left was tough enough with so many good men joining up, and the govt's wage controls made the situation worse when employers found they couldn't offer higher wages to get people to hire on. Whether this was justifiable, not to say effective, by the war emergency is debatable.
Employers screamed bloody murder as their businesses approached collapse due to unfilled jobs, and while government refused to lift its wage and price controls, they announced the employers could offer benefits in lieu of pay to attract workers. One benefit was a tax exemption for employer-provided health insurance.
This helped somewhat, but with an employer only able to offer a few insurance plans, it locked employees into fairly uncompetetive market unless he changed jobs. And FDR's relatively new policy of "tax withholding" was extended to the employee part of the payments for insurance, further insulating the employee fro the gut-check of having to write weekly or monthly checks to the insurance company.
Employers offered "Cadillac" plans in their efforts to attract workers, and the employees seldom saw the actual cost of those expensive plans, which often paid for routine medications and office visits formerly not covered by real insurance plans. That, plus the lack of competition most insurance companies found themselves facing, removed a lot of their impetus to pare costs. And employees became used to health care which "seemed free", and started thinking of it as something akin to a "right", since it (sort of) appeared to cost nothing.
When the war ended, government did NOT remove the tax exemption for employer-provided health insurance even though the circumstances that made it desirable were now gone. And so health insurance has existed in a strange nether world ever since for most people, with employees of a company locked into the few (or one) insurance plan offered by that company with little likelihood they will ever leave it. At the same time it appeared to cost little or nothing, with even routine services (far beyond the major-event coverage real insurance is for) included and seeming "complimentary".
Fast forward to the 21st century. Now we have self-serving politicians screaming from the rooftops that health care is somehow a "right", though it comes nowhere close to resembling a right to liberty, right to speech, right to self-defense etc. - all of which are based on the fundamental right to be left alone and to associate only voluntarily with others. And most people, used to generations of "free" health care that was caused by that very government long ago, are actually believing it, despite the clear unworkability of the idea, the unnecessary expense and clumsiness of one-size-fits-all (or even three-sizes-fit-all) policies administered from thousand of miles away in Washington.
The cockeyed notion that we somehow have a "right" to have a broken arm set or an infection cleaned and treated by others, came (as so many cockeyed ideas do) from government intrusion into private matters in the first place.
We should be thankful that the government didn't offer tax breaks for food purchased by one's employer. Or by now, the same deluded people would be screaming that they had a "right" to food (some actually believe this one too, after generations of food stamps). Ditto for rent, phone service, etc., all of which have been tainted at one time or another by government programs to make them nearly "free".
Weaning Americans off these destructive addictions to "free" necessities and "rights" that aren't rights and never were, will be painful, as breaking an addiction always is. But it is no less necessary, if we are to survive as sovereign citizens in a free society.
