Health Care Is Not A Right!

[GazzaQueen]

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.

I have a sniffle. Give me $50.

[blackascoal]

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]

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.'

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.

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]

Actually, they do, and the courts have upheld it time and again. You continue to prove what a Constitutional ignoramus you are.

so you can go to walmart and demand your right to take a dvd as your right??????

Haven't carried that sawed off shotgun into the courthouse, have you, 2A PUSSY?

keep increasing your idiocy. it's amusing, government stooge.

[SmarterthanYou]

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.

so congress can magically create rights via legislation? can they magically remove rights via legislation?

If your argument has any legal or constitutional standing your side would have already overturned it on that basis.

It doesn't.

just because the courts are complicit in tyranny doesn't mean it's unconstitutional. the courts have been tyrannical for over 100 years now.

[Rune]

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.

[domer76]

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]

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]

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]

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

[domer76]

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]

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]

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?

[Rune]

so if the younger generation DEMANDS a ferrari after highschool graduation, is it a RIGHT????

Other than the absurdity;
If the both houses of congress pass it and the president sings it and the courts find it constitutional then yes.

[domer76]

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]."