Yes it does. It’s right next to “Give Texashusker $200,000,000 and tax exempt status for the rest of his life”
When the shooter entered that Texas church and killed 25 people , Crystal Holcombe was eight months pregnant yet the final death count was 26 . 
SMH
Okay.
Let us say that healthcare is, indeed, a “human right.”
I will not argue that point.
But it is clearly not a constitutional right.
My question–which you seem to be tap dancing around–is this: Which trumps the other: Are “human rights” more important than constitutional rights, or vice-versa?
If you choose not to address this question, directly, then I can only assume that you have no worthwhile answer.
1 Like
It’s best not to play their game. It’s clear healthcare is a right. Making others pay for it is the leap these folks make. They’ve conflated rights with entitlements. It’s really easy. I have the right to bear arms, though I do not have the right to demand free guns. I have the right to free speech but I don’t have the right to demand a free computer. I have the right to practice my religion but I don’t have the right to pass the cost of going to church onto the tax payers. They’re just confused as to what an actual right is. The rule of thumb… your right doesn’t require the labor of others in order to exercise it. These idiots are still pushing for slavery more than 150 years after we abolished it.
2 Likes
Nor even questioned in developed, first world countries. You would think that a nation wealthy as the US would have no problem promoting and facilitating the general welfare of all of its citizens in that matter.
Then try amending the constitution to that effect.
For all the libbies who cry that conservatives don’t get it, when arguments like these are made it proves that it’s the progressives that don’t get it! There is already large enough sample size of countries with health care and the burgeoning abuses of their systems make such concepts unsustainable! Just look at countries with national healthcare and you will find that most are running large deficits year after year in order to pay for it! Not to mention the quality of care, and the enormous wait times is always the case then maybe you might begin to see why conservatives don’t want a single payer state run health care system. They simply want a system where the issue of cost is addressed so the free market can handle the correction with fair competition. Progressives always think a one size fits all is the only solution without offering a well thought out plan with mechanisms for long term stability of offering such entitlements! Just look at how bad the ACA rollout was which should tell you all you need to about government run healthcare system would be bad for everyone! No thank you! All you are ever advocating for with such arguments is a redistribution of wealth that leads us on the same road by way of Venezuela did! For all the bitching you progressives do about conservatives not getting it why is that your side refuses to see our side of the argument? Make a more compelling argument and I will listen, but so far all we get is the usual hyperbole and talking point from the hit and run progressives who are too afraid to actually defend their arguments for such entitlements! Not a winning strategy in the greater discourse of debating a topic as important as healthcare! It’s why talking to any liberal Democrat is an extremely frustrating experience, because they don’t know what they are talking about half the time!
3 Likes
That’s a blatant violation of rules of civil liberty. Their posts have only been flagged when the forum rules have been violated, such as directing PERSONAL insults and direct name calling of fellow posters…
This is a private forum, civil liberties do not apply.
1 Like
I’d be interested in how you know that. While I see evidence of flaggers, I have no idea of how many there are. How do you have this knowledge?
I think you’re going to find that to be perennial. Just keep going forward…
Don’t follow them down this rabbit hole taking the thread off track.
That is why he gets flagged, he can never talk about the topics instead every other post is a childish retort at trump and his supporters! He always tries to derail threads on purpose!
Don’t engage, just flag and move on or we end up as guilty as they are.
2 Likes
Maybe we need to ask for a “Thumbs Down” or “Dislike” sticker.
Flagging is not meant to denote disagreement but to call attention to violation(s) of forum guidelines.
Maybe @Patriot will consider this.
4 Likes
I love it when people pull out that old chestnut because it shows they do not understand the importance of what Marshall called the original right of those that Ratified the Constitution and how that relates to the permanent principals he also referenced.
You see, it was the act of Ratification that made the Constitution a Law, not the writing of it.
Before Ratification, after writing, the Framers had to stop writing and submit their work to others who alone had the right to give consent, the legislatures of the several States. At such a time the Framers had a lawful and reasonable role to play to offer advice to those with the right of consent.
It is in this context that the Federalist Papers were written, including Hamilton presenting a strongly worded defense of the doctrine of delegated powers that was absolute in its character, wherein he suggested that a further Bill of Rights to forbid the federal to do things it was not empowered to do in the first place was itself pointless and problematic, able to be used by men of low character as pretext to say there could be powers to be had besides the enumerated Powers.
Now, as for the meaning of the clause in question before Ratification, when the meaning of the text agreed to became the substance of those permanent principal Marshall referred to, we find Madison offering the same description that I have referenced: that the enumerated Powers represent all the Powers by which the Federal may attempt to promote the general welfare.
This view, contrary to what you may imagine, was in no way contradicted by Hamilton prior to Ratification. Indeed his defense of the doctrine of delegated powers expressly supported what Madison said.
Moreover, the Antifederalist themselves demonstrated that what Madison wrote was commonly accepted to be the intended meaning of the phrase within the taxation clause, for they argued that by abuse and misconstruction that it could be twisted to mean what so-called progressives have twisted it to mean.
But the Hamiltonian view?
Only expressed AFTER Ratification when Hamilton was a public servant in the government authorized by the Constitution … therefore something that could in no way represent him giving advice to those with the power of consent.
So let me ask you: who was Sovereign to make Law, to dispose of Law, was if the several States that Ratified or was it Alexander Hamilton?
When Hamilton wrote after the fact, after Ratification, and contradicted what he and the others had advised before Ratification he wrote spuriously, lawlessly.
That he disagreed latter day style is meaningless to what the Law means.
In a matter like Ratification it is important WHEN someone speaks, not just who speaks.
2 Likes
The “chestnut” that I pulled out is the evidence that there was no consensus on the welfare clause, even amongst the “founding fathers”… 
The passage and ratification of the document seems to indicate otherwise.
There comes a point in a wedding when the minister asks those assembled if they have any reason why these two should should not be married. It is commonly followed with speak now or forever hold your peace,
If no one says anything but later at the reception they start talking smack about the bride they are speaking out of turn.
Ratification is the same.
When someone speaks matters. If your argument is that a view only expressed after Ratification shows there was disagreement before Ratification then you’ve no argument at all.
Ratification, those who Ratified, agreed to enact the Law based on what Madison and the rest said before Ratification. Not with what Hamilton wrote later when he spoke out of turn.
The “Madisonian view” as some call it is the only proper view.
2 Likes