GazzaQueen
Verified User
I have a sniffle. Give me $50.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Health Care Is Not A Right!
- Thread starter philly rabbit
- Start date
I have a sniffle. Give me $50.
blackascoal
The Force is With Me
what it meant at the time of ratification, means the very same now. so no, my friend, you would be incorrect.
No, you are.
Being a living document means that the basic nature of the document remains unchanged .. else, you've written a different document.
Healthcare requires no changes in the Constitution.
If your argument has any legal or constitutional standing your side would have already overturned it on that basis.
It doesn't.
SmarterthanYou
rebel
no, it wasn't legally JUDGED. Judges had absolutely zero to do with outlawing slavery. WE THE PEOPLE evolved and amended the constitution to make slavery unconstitutional, giving blacks the acknowledgement of all human rights.Again, I disagree. It means that people don't have your narrow libertarian view of what is a right.
Let's use your argument. People DID own other people as slaves for hundreds of years .. and they did so because it was their 'right' to do so.
You can't own people as slaves here anymore because it has been legally judged that you no longer have that 'right.'
The argument that healthcare isn't some narrowly defined 'right' is a completely useless argument because it exists and it's not going away.
Rights are determined by what you can DEMAND .. not by what is fair, honest, civil, or by what Jesus would do.
If you can't DEMAND them, they aren't your right.
so if the younger generation DEMANDS a ferrari after highschool graduation, is it a RIGHT????
SmarterthanYou
rebel
so you can go to walmart and demand your right to take a dvd as your right??????Actually, they do, and the courts have upheld it time and again. You continue to prove what a Constitutional ignoramus you are.
keep increasing your idiocy. it's amusing, government stooge.Haven't carried that sawed off shotgun into the courthouse, have you, 2A PUSSY?
SmarterthanYou
rebel
so congress can magically create rights via legislation? can they magically remove rights via legislation?No, you are.
Being a living document means that the basic nature of the document remains unchanged .. else, you've written a different document.
Healthcare requires no changes in the Constitution.
just because the courts are complicit in tyranny doesn't mean it's unconstitutional. the courts have been tyrannical for over 100 years now.If your argument has any legal or constitutional standing your side would have already overturned it on that basis.
It doesn't.
this only means that people have a seriously twisted idea of what a RIGHT is. If a majority of the populace wanted it to be a RIGHT for people to own other people as slaves and could get it pushed through politicallly, does that really make it a RIGHT? On the other side of that, the RIGHT to keep and bear arms is very clearly written, yet NY and Cali make it almost impossible for most people to exercise that right, even politically. So I ask.....how are YOU defining a RIGHT?
WTF
Yes your definition of right is extremely twisted.
right....morally good, justified, or acceptable.
To think that one piece of paper codifies all rights is childish.
The document says so itself;
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
No such thing as a living document you stupid fucking coon
Find one quote of a founder calling it a living document. Just one
Jefferson was a proponent of rewriting the Constitution every 20 years so that each generation was not enslaved by the notions of the previous.
blackascoal
The Force is With Me
no, it wasn't legally JUDGED. Judges had absolutely zero to do with outlawing slavery. WE THE PEOPLE evolved and amended the constitution to make slavery unconstitutional, giving blacks the acknowledgement of all human rights.
Judging had absolutely nothing to do with it.
It existed for HUNDREDS OF YEARS. .. and there was the judging .. by doing nothing about it.
Humanity doesn't have to be judged by a court, nor by a brutal people.
so if the younger generation DEMANDS a ferrari after highschool graduation, is it a RIGHT????
Neither you nor I will have anything to do with what future societies do .. nor should we.
SmarterthanYou
rebel
WTF
Yes your definition of right is extremely twisted.
right....morally good, justified, or acceptable.
To think that one piece of paper codifies all rights is childish.
The document says so itself;
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
there is a different between whats RIGHT and what is A RIGHT.
SmarterthanYou
rebel
Jefferson was a proponent of rewriting the Constitution every 20 years so that each generation was not enslaved by the notions of the previous.
and that did not get written in to the constitution, did it, you retard
so you can go to walmart and demand your right to take a dvd as your right??????
keep increasing your idiocy. it's amusing, government stooge.
It's very difficult to have a conversation with such a simpleton, but some of us keep trying.
If you provide a service to some, you provide that service to all. That's the right to a service, you fucking idiot. Even a moron knew what I was referring to, but you fail to reach that level.
What a hypocritical pusswipe. You flail around as if you know something about the Constitution, yet you continually demonstrate your ignorance. The "shall not be infringed" bullshit is just one example. If you feel so strongly that is your right to carry that sawed off shotgun anywhere you want, why don't you? Because, turdlicker, you're either a PUSSY or a LIAR. I submit both. A LYING PUSSY.
blackascoal
The Force is With Me
so congress can magically create rights via legislation? can they magically remove rights via legislation?
just because the courts are complicit in tyranny doesn't mean it's unconstitutional. the courts have been tyrannical for over 100 years now.
You keep arguing your narrow view of what a 'right' is while at the same time calling the courts ... which DEFINE what a right is .. tyrannical.
That makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.
It's you arguing that only you get to define what a right is .. not the American people, not even the courts.
.. good luck with that 'argument.' :0)
blackascoal
The Force is With Me
there is a different between whats RIGHT and what is A RIGHT.
.. and only you and libertarians get to decide?
If your argument has any legal or constitutional standing your side would have already overturned the ACA on that basis.
Why haven't you?
Other than the absurdity;so if the younger generation DEMANDS a ferrari after highschool graduation, is it a RIGHT????
If the both houses of congress pass it and the president sings it and the courts find it constitutional then yes.
and that did not get written in to the constitution, did it, you retard
He asked for a quote, you fucking moron. I gave him the reference. Here are some quotes from Jefferson, basically saying each generation should not be bound the the ideas of a previous, dead one.
"Every constitution, then, and every law, naturally expires at the end of nineteen years. If it be enforced longer, it is an act of force, and not of right. It may be said, that the succeeding generation exercising, in fact, the power of repeal, this leaves them as free as if the constitution or law had been expressly limited to nineteen years only."
"Each generation is as independent as the one preceding, as that was of all which had gone before. It has then, like them, a right to choose for itself the form of government it believes most promotive of its own happiness; consequently, to accommodate to the circumstances in which it finds itself that received from its predecessors;"
"Forty years [after a] Constitution... was formed,... two-thirds of the adults then living are... dead. Have, then, the remaining third, even if they had the wish, the right to hold in obedience to their will and to laws heretofore made by them, the other two-thirds who with themselves compose the present mass of adults? If they have not, who has? The dead? But the dead have no rights. They are nothing, and nothing can not own something. Where there is no substance, there can be no accident [i.e., attribute]."
a moral or legal entitlement to have or obtain something or to act in a certain way.there is a different between whats RIGHT and what is A RIGHT.
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people
do you even understand the 9th?
no, it wasn't legally JUDGED. Judges had absolutely zero to do with outlawing slavery. WE THE PEOPLE evolved and amended the constitution to make slavery unconstitutional, giving blacks the acknowledgement of all human rights.
so if the younger generation DEMANDS a ferrari after highschool graduation, is it a RIGHT????
The first sentence supposes that the people could change their minds and make black people human property again through amendment. The Ferrari comparison is inapt because it is untethered to any constitutionally recognized fundamental principle, whereas health care is rationally related to people's health and therefore life and as recognized in the due process clause of the 14th amendment.
Also, a right can exist by creation of any law, it needn't be a constitutional right to have a right. If a for example single payer law pass, it would be you in the position of challenging that legal right as violative of your due process minority right against the majoritarian impulse that enacted it. Then there would be a scrutiny judicial review. You'd want the most strict to be applied, the proponents the least strict.
I guess the argument that healthcare is an implied fundamental right is yet a further argument.
SmarterthanYou
rebel
lets test your stupid assed theoryIt's very difficult to have a conversation with such a simpleton, but some of us keep trying.
so I can go in to any grocery store or restaurant with my openly carried handgun because they let cops open carry there. thanks. same with courthouses??????If you provide a service to some, you provide that service to all. That's the right to a service, you fucking idiot. Even a moron knew what I was referring to, but you fail to reach that level.
I would LOVE to go around with my sawed off shotgun. the problem isn't mine, its YOU!!!!!! because your COWARDICE of people with guns prompts you to BEG the government to keep us away from you. hence, you happily surrender not only YOUR right to do so, but those of us who are NOT cowards. it is YOUR ISSUE, you fucking underwear stripe.What a hypocritical pusswipe. You flail around as if you know something about the Constitution, yet you continually demonstrate your ignorance. The "shall not be infringed" bullshit is just one example. If you feel so strongly that is your right to carry that sawed off shotgun anywhere you want, why don't you? Because, turdlicker, you're either a PUSSY or a LIAR. I submit both. A LYING PUSSY.
SmarterthanYou
rebel
the REASON it doesn't make any sense to you is that you apparently do not have the cognitive recognition of who wrote the constitution and who did so with recognition of what rights people do have. the COURT didn't write the constitution. the GOVERNMENT did not write the constitution. WE THE PEOPLE wrote the constitution and did NOT give the courts any power to change what our rights are, though you liberals and socialists seemed way intent on doing as much.You keep arguing your narrow view of what a 'right' is while at the same time calling the courts ... which DEFINE what a right is .. tyrannical.
That makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.
SmarterthanYou
rebel
.. and only you and libertarians get to decide?
If your argument has any legal or constitutional standing your side would have already overturned the ACA on that basis.
Why haven't you?
because the majority of you sheeple are too afraid of liberty and making your own choices. or people like you have determined that the majority of people are not capable of making those decisions and that YOU must do so for them. more complicit tyranny of the courts.