Since Dermy forgot to link to the article he's quoting, it's here:
http://www.constitution.org/9ll/schol/pnur.htm
Dermezel
How does this relate to health care? It is because Madison implied similar things with respect to laws that are basic human rights, among which, is the right to live:
Except the First Amendment demands non-interference with the exercise of a right, not that the government take active steps to foster an environment where individuals proclaim their faith and proselytize the unconverted. The First Amendment is not a statement that "Congress shall make Laws encouraging all varieties of religious practice," it is a statement that Congress has no business getting involved in religious matters.
The Constitution recognizes the right to life as fundamental, but that isn't the same as saying it imposes on the government an obligation to make efforts to encourage the health of its citizens by enacting policies X, Y and Z. Whether it even demands the government take active steps to assure a healthy life to its citizens to any extent at all is highly debatable.
Quote:
Positive rights, which regulate the actions of a community (taxes) and are determined by the social compact.
And the contents of some Lockean or Rousseau-ish social contract can be determined...how? And why are we so certain that universal healthcare is on the list? Why should we even assume a social compact exists?
Quote:
Quote:
When officials of all three branches try to evade their duty to enforce the Constitution, by trying to push the duty off onto other branches,
the enduring result is less likely to be activation of effective public demand for protection of their rights than expansion of the powers of petty tyrants too numerous, well organized, and well-funded to be readily overcome by diffuse public pressure.
The Ninth Amendment is meant to prevent the government from doing things we would normally consider tyrannical or crazy, or harmful enough to society to begin infringing on social function and our ability to live and act freely.
Except that's not what he's saying. Roland is saying that the powers of the state and the rights of the citizens are to be understood as opposites, where a state has a power citizens have no right to governmental non-interference:
Quote:
immunities are the complement of delegated powers: Every delegated power is a restriction on immunities, and every immunity is a restriction on delegated powers. Thus, a constitutional right, or immunity, can be expressed either as a declaration, or as a restriction on a power. The two modes of expression represent different ways of expressing the same concept.
Moreover, Roland says that rights should be construed as broadly as possible, which necessarily means powers must be construed as narrowly as possible. Under Roland's model of Constitutional interpretation, the Ninth and Tenth Amendments demand that any act of the state is presumed unconstitutional until proven otherwise. The passage you quote merely means that branches of government should not trust one-another's judgment of what is and is not constitutional, or within their authority to do. In the absence of such vigilance, "numerous, organized and well-funded petty tyrants" (i.e. members of the Executive, Legislative, or Judicial branches) would abuse their power and violate the rights of the people.
So, then, I'm very curious to hear how you got "an affirmative right to health care for all" from phrases such as "presumption of non-authority" and "People have a right to challenge the authority of officials, and the burden of proof is on the officials that they have authority to do what they are doing or propose to do." Doesn't this sound more like the arguments of someone at a tea party rally? A particularly eloquent and articulate version of "show me where in the Constitution it says congress is allowed to pass healthcare?" (I should add that, if these are Roland's views, he is almost certainly in a very small minority in holding these views. Nor does his CV on Wikipedia give me great confidence in his scholarship.)
It could be that Roland means this article to only discuss rights relating to civil liberties, but then it would still follow that the government has no obligation to provide healthcare (although the element of "presumption of non-authority" regarding domestic policy, and the tea party parallels, would then vanish.)
agrab
well then, states have the right to kill their people under the 10th (not under the 14th, damnit)
and, states have the right to leave under the 10th
and i have the right to kill without punishment under the 9th
just because it reserves rights does not mean that there are more rights
This is the single dumbest thing I have ever heard you say. I can't even begin to guess at what neurons misfired to produce the grotesque caricature of reasoning that led you to say this.
Zealth
But what happens when a "right" like public education actually restricts the freedom of the American people? Certainly, to some extent, it is then a violation of the constitution.
Public education isn't a right,
see, e.g., San Antonio Sch. Dist. v. Rodriquez, 411 U.S. 1 (1973). That said, when a state chooses to provide public education, it must offer it to all living within its boundaries,
Plyler v. Doe, 457 U.S. 202 (1982). I have no idea what you're talking about when you claim education limits the freedom of the people.
Quote:
Public education certainly limits liberty by creating districts and not allowing parents to choose the best school for their children.
And? Are you saying the government restricts your freedom to use the services it provides under whatever conditions you would like? I'm reasonably certain that's not a right protected by the Constitution. Many public schools allow students to attend if you pay out-of-district tuition, you know. Have you considered private school? I'm not really sure what right or freedom, exactly, you're seeing infringed.
