Context

[agavi...@gmail.com]

"Civil rights are the rights of individuals to receive equal treatment, including disabilities and pre-existing conditions. @AmericanCancer"

I read this today on Twitter.

There is no right to healthcare in the constitution.

Why should there be?

[Eric Ramon]

there's also nothing in the constitution about the right to food and water, is there? And what about guaranteed seats on an airplane? Nothing that I can find!

It could be argued, though, that the Declaration of Independence's mention of the right to "life" is an implied assumption of health care. Some, I think, take the position that that would mean the right to "birth" and that after that you're on your own, buddy!

[agavi...@gmail.com]

The right to life no more means a right to free healthcare than does the right to pursue happiness means a right to free Disney tickets.

[Ken Olson]

The DOI isn't law.

[dotsla...@gmail.com]

And the constitution wasn't heavy on civil rights for folks regardless of race or gender.

Ok, I think we're all caught up on the irrelevant! Can we stop pretending the dudes who wrote the three fifths compromise were infallible? :)

Cheers.

[Ken Olson]

The 3/5 was necessary as an inducement to get the South to sign on.

[Michael Press]

In article <41fbebb9-6666-422b...@googlegroups.com>,

Eric Ramon <ramon...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Friday, May 5, 2017 at 9:17:14 AM UTC-7, the_andr...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > "Civil rights are the rights of individuals to receive equal treatment, including disabilities and pre-existing conditions. @AmericanCancer"
> >
> > I read this today on Twitter.
> >
> > There is no right to healthcare in the constitution.
> >
> > Why should there be?
>
> there's also nothing in the constitution about the right to food and water, is there? And what about guaranteed seats on an airplane? Nothing that I can find!
>
> It could be argued, though, that the Declaration of Independence's mention of the right to "life" is an implied assumption of health care.

Then make the argument. But you do not. You repeat another
sophisticated rhetorical device out of the book of sophisticated
rhetorical devices.

Right to life is the inalienable right to defend one's life.
Here inalienaable means that no person and no agencey and no
government can abridge that right. Stand your ground is grounded
on the right to life. The right to bear arms is based on the
right to life. Demanding that somebody else nurse you to health
is not based on the right to life.

> Some, I think, take the position that that would mean the right to "birth" and that after that you're on your own, buddy!

Not quite. Two people who engender a child are responsible for that child.
Otherwise they are prosecuted for abuse or murder. Upon attaining your majority
you are on your own, buddy.

--
Michael Press

[agavi...@gmail.com]

> And the constitution wasn't heavy on civil rights for folks regardless of race or gender.

All men are created equal is confusing.

[J. Hugh Sullivan]

On Fri, 5 May 2017 11:22:51 -0700 (PDT), Eric Ramon
<ramon...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Friday, May 5, 2017 at 9:17:14 AM UTC-7, the_andr...@yahoo.com wrote:

>> "Civil rights are the rights of individuals to receive equal treatment, i=

>ncluding disabilities and pre-existing conditions. @AmericanCancer"
>>
>> I read this today on Twitter.
>>
>> There is no right to healthcare in the constitution.
>>
>> Why should there be?
>

>there's also nothing in the constitution about the right to food and water,=
> is there? And what about guaranteed seats on an airplane? Nothing that I c=
>an find!
>
>It could be argued, though, that the Declaration of Independence's mention =
>of the right to "life" is an implied assumption of health care. Some, I thi=
>nk, take the position that that would mean the right to "birth" and that af=

>ter that you're on your own, buddy!

!. Except for the soul we are not even born equal.
2. The government is charged to "promote" the general welfare, not
guarantee it.
3. The government is charged with providing EQUAL OPPORTUNITY, not
legislating equality.
4. Government is charged with making no law establishing religion or
the free exercise.
5. There is a right to peacefully protest. Disorderly and violent are
not synonyms of peacefully.


Hugh


---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com

[J. Hugh Sullivan]

On Fri, 5 May 2017 14:34:26 -0700 (PDT), dotsla...@gmail.com
wrote:

>And the constitution wasn't heavy on civil rights for folks regardless of race or gender.
>
>Ok, I think we're all caught up on the irrelevant! Can we stop pretending the dudes who wrote the three fifths compromise were infallible? :)

So they were fallible. Speaking of irrelevant, how would that change
the law?

[dotsla...@gmail.com]

Is all men created equal in the constitution, drew?

Is the 3/5 compromise in the constitution, drew?

Cheers.

[agavi...@gmail.com]

Do you always post like a douche, troll?

Equality under the law is in the constitution.

[dotsla...@gmail.com]

I tend to give people what they serve up, dbag.

Cheers.

[Ken Olson]

On 5/6/2017 8:02 PM, dotsla...@gmail.com wrote:
> I tend to give people what they serve up, dbag.
>
> Cheers.
>

So you have no knowledge of the history of the creation of the document?

[agavi...@gmail.com]

not sure why I chose to engage you again, thinking you'd finally given up that kind of posting.

I won't make the same mistake twice.

[dotsla...@gmail.com]

Such a dire threat, drew. Here's what I said:

"Can we stop pretending the dudes who wrote the three fifths compromise were infallible?"

Here was your response in its entirety:

"All men are created equal is confusing."

Yeah. Nothing dbagish there.

It's not like you actually disagreed with anything I said directly - who'd wanna defend that particular compromise as evidence the constitution was somehow written in granite, right?

Nah, you just wanted to get in a general, snarky, empty, meaningless swipe.

And *you're* gonna whinge about being trolled?

Hike up your skirt and gmafb.

Cheers.

[dotsla...@gmail.com]

Ken, I wasn't talking to you there and have some general understanding of why they included the three fifths compromise in the first place.

I also think it's a pretty easy example of why the document shouldn't be considered written in stone, which was my only point.

In my mind, the dudes who wrote it understood this, which is why they included multiple paths to amendment.

Cheers.

[The Cheesehusker, Trade Warrior]

Rights are those things which come naturally to us - and can be restricted by the gov.

All other things are nice things to have.

Oh and TANSTAAFL

[RoddyMcCorley]

Sort of like a white devil's bargain? It now serves as America's
original sin.

--
False words are not only evil in themselves, but they infect the soul
with evil.

Pennsylvania - Tá sé difriúil anseo.

[Ken Olson]

On 5/12/2017 1:06 PM, RoddyMcCorley wrote:
> On 5/5/2017 7:38 PM, Ken Olson wrote:
>> On 5/5/2017 5:34 PM, dotsla...@gmail.com wrote:
>>> And the constitution wasn't heavy on civil rights for folks regardless
>>> of race or gender.
>>>
>>> Ok, I think we're all caught up on the irrelevant! Can we stop
>>> pretending the dudes who wrote the three fifths compromise were
>>> infallible? :)
>>>
>>> Cheers.
>>>
>>
>> The 3/5 was necessary as an inducement to get the South to sign on.
>
> Sort of like a white devil's bargain? It now serves as America's
> original sin.
>

The Declaration was the promise, the Constitution was the compromise,
and the Civil War was the fulfillment.