Renegade

Here is the quote your link pointed to: Sorry but I really don't see how that answers the question I asked. If I did I wouldn't have asked it. Maybe you can do us the courtesy of answering the question directly. Also since you ignored the challenge to show that there is any consensus in the interperetaion of the DoI that a "right to life" = "right to free medical care", I'm going to assume you have no such evidence and it is nothing more than your opinion.

For the upteenth time. I AGREE!!!. I REALIZE IT DOESN'T REQUIRE INDIVIDUAL CITIZENS SUPPORT. THERE IS THAT CLEAR? THAT IS NOT WHAT I MEANT WHEN I SAID IT REQUIRE ENOUGH PEOPLE'S SUPPORT. THERE, CAN WE GET PAST IT NOW???? Frankly I don't understand your use of the word "accountable" then. I'm not really clear how an elected representative an be accountable to a document. It is only the people who can elect , refuse to elect or impeach an individual. I agree that the politician does have to agree to uphold the Constitution of the US. But any changes to that constitution do require support from th majority of the elected representatives. Fine, I agree with that. The key word is HE. It doesn't mean all senators use the document any more than it means all senators use the bible as their source of political philsophy. Indeed a senator can use the Koran as his source of politica philosophy. You only prove that for some individuals the source of their principles is the DoI. That just about gives it the same weighting as the source of poliical philosophy as other documents used for that purpose. Show me where I said it wasn't. I simply said that any rights in it carry no legal weight until such time as they are enshrined in the constitution. I quote Canada because I am more familiar with their rulings. Again when you refer to a "right" you are referring to a "moral right". As you agree that Congress has passed no law giving anyone such legal right. You are putting your own interpretation to what the "right to life" means. I understand your interpretation. I disagree with it. What I asked is if there was any concensus that intrepretation was correct. Your repeating your opinion over and over does nothing to add credibilty to your interpretation. Yes in many instances "life" requires medical care. In my intepretation, the "right to life" means no one should be able to impede your access to medical care. Note that I said "access", it doesn't mean care shoud be provided for you. As an example, the right to free speech doesn't mean that the government has to pay for billboards or air time for you to spout your vews. It simply means they cannot forbid your access. You avoided answering my question, so for the third time, do you think the right to life should be interpreted as the right to government provided free food, and free housing?

I have already clarified what I meant so I'm not sure why you choose to dwell on this particular point. We agree, you need enough support from elected representitives of the people in order to pass laws or constitutional amendments. IMV, those elected representatives are delegated the authority to act for the people and are accountable to the people, and so are not acting idependant of them. Examples are not proof. I can quote at least a couple of Senators (Jim Inhofe, Nancy Jacobs) who have cited the Bible as the source of their political views. IMV, that is not sufficient to PROVE that the Bible is the source of law in general. Fine, then let's just call it my misunderstanding of your claim. Let's just put this to bed because I think then we can agree on a couple of things: 1. Some of the principles many Americans agree with are enshrined in the DoI. 2. Those principles have no weighting in law until they are enshrined in the Constitution. 3. The legal rights enshrined in the Constitution are not exclusive to principles in the DoI or anywhere else. Pretty much any rights that passes the due approval process can be enshrined via a constitutional amendment. Agreed? Yes I understand, that is why I asked what specific things the government had to do to allow me to persue happiness. Let's forget that one for the moment. I agree and support that the right to life is a "moral right". You did not address why the right to life doesn't mean a right to free food and shelter. Do you not agree that food and shelter are a requirement to life? no problem. ----------------------- Can I please ask you to address this because it is at the heart of the matter: You can take as a given that we agree that there is a moral right to life.

I agree, and I'm aware of the Chaoulli decision. It reinforces my point. BTW, my challenge to AW was to prove an intrpretation that a "right to life" = "right to free universal medical care". Sorry if I wasn't specific.

AW, If I an ask you to prove one thing. Please show that there is consensus anywhere beyond yourself that a reading of "right to life" = "right to medical care". Court decisions (at least in Canada) have not upheld such an intrepretation.

When I said "enough people to support it" I meant the people directly or indirectly through their elected representatives. I'm sorry you don't read it that way but I do, and so it appears to others in the forum. I'm willing to be corrected Show me tracability between the Declaration of Independance and Constitutionl amendments. BTW, are you saying that all Constitutional amendments have that traceablity or just the ones you cited? Do you agree that legal rights can be created or recinded without reference to the DoI? The fact that one senator references the DoI doesn't prove tracability beyond that one senator. To continue your reasoning, the Senate should be actively persuing Constitutional amendments which enshrine my right to "persuit of happiness". Please tell me how this wll occur. To stretch your reading of the "right to life" the Senate should be actively persuing constitutional amendments which provide free food and housing to everyone because afterall food and housing are necessary to "life". Who specificly is working on this? I agree and I didn't say that the principles in the DoI mean nothing today. Many of the principles are general principles many people agree wth including the principle of "all men are created equal". What I think is hogwash is your assertion that the DoI is the basis for all current and future principles to be enshrined in the Constitution. While I agree that there is overlap in the principles enshrined within, you will see that same overlap in many other historical documents (eg the Bible). Actualy I only stated it once. I don't know where you are reading it over and over. BTW I understand that you keep bringing it up over and over, but reciting the same opinion over and over, doesn't make it more credible unless you cite supporting evidence.

The term "full employment" is usually meant to convey an employment situation where nobody is unemployed due to lack of available employment opportuniies. However it is a misleading term because even if there are job opporunities for everyone who is not employed, there will always be a certain percentage, who for their own reasons will not accept an employment opportunity. The term "maximium employment" better conveys the situation where employment is not constrained by the lack of employment opportunities. They can eliminate the minimimium wage. They can eliminate or reduce social benefits, in effect pressuring people who would otherwise not work to work. They can subsidize mobility to areas of high employment. They can provide free or subsidized skills programs. The list can go on. More generous social programs. When you have a generous social payment it is a dsincentive to take certain jobs even if they pay slightly higher than the payment rate. Keep doing that and you will be branded a troll.

Really? Then I must be misinformed of the procedure for constitutional amendment. You said this: I'm going t take your word for it that a consttutional amendment was necessary. To create an costitutional amendment here is the process: Article Five of the United States Constitution I would classify requiring support from 2/3 of the elected representatives of the people as requiring "enough people to agree". Even where Constitutional amendments are not required and Laws are passed, it requres support of the represetatives of the people. IOW, enough represtatves of the people must agree. I believe this is complete hogwash. Laws cannot be passed or constitutional amendments made simply bsed upon intents from founding fathers more than 200 years ago. For them to be passed it requires sufficient support from people TODAY. If you don't have that support from elected representatives, it doesn't matter what principles anyone had prior, they won't be enshrined in the constitution. My point is this: You seem to believe the only rights which can be enshrined into the constitution are ones which were recognized in principle when the US was created but never "implemented". Show me where in US law there exists that restriction? You can add any right to the constitution you want to if you have support of the required number of representatives. For example, if enough representatives agreed that any taxpayer should have the right to withdraw their personal funding support for a war they disagreed with, I'm sure you can write it into your constitution regardless if it was within the intents of the founding fathers. Similarily if there was enough support to recind an existing right, (eg the right to bear arms), the constitution can be amended regardless of your forefarthers intent. Ah now you are starting to distinguish between different kinds of rights. My comments in previous posts were based upon what you call "legal rights". If you want to use the term "moral right" please define it. Who defines what is a moral right? Is it the church, God, or do we define it individually? In some cultures, they feel they have the moral authority to execute someone if they have blasphemed their religion. Do they have that "moral right"? Why not? Can you please cite where you are pulling this definition? Personally I agree with you that there are "basic rights" some of which are not enshrined in law, however my discussion in previous posts was wrt the legal definition of rights. These "moral" rights are typically termed "human rights". There is some universal concesus on what those rights are, so it is easy to condenm Saudi Aabia for their abuses of those rights. However, nowhere have I ever seen in the consensus of basic human rights, is a consensus that free medical care is a basic human right. Even in Canada, universal medical care is a choice we make by electing a government who has policies consistant with that choice. It has never been a "right" and I don't expect it ever will be one.

Probably not, but even if they did it would be a foolish proposition to pursue because as it stands now, they would lose. Yes you are right you can amend the constitution to your heart's content. You can even decree it a right that everyone has a right to a 4000sq ft house and an SUV. You just need enough people to agree. As to whether you are adding new "rights" or simply implemening existing rights the point is one of semantics. Either way we agree, you don't have the power to enforce government spending on healthcare without a constitutional amendment. Legally rights are what are defined in the constitution and are enforcable and have been agreed to by a set mechanism. There is no such thing as "rights we acknowledge but have yet to implement". You can implement anything you want to in the constitution if you all agree it is a right. Women and supporters fought for the right to vote. They didn't have that right before. I agree with you they were entitled to that right, but it doesnt change the fact that they didnt have it before. Call it what you wish, that is purely subjective, however to make it a right requires more than a change in laws. To make it a right requires a constitutional amenement, a much more onerous process than just passing a law. Also, you are quite wrong, many laws have been changed because they have been challenged in court. Segregation and abortion are but two examples.

I guess that depends upon what you consider a right is. IMV a right is something which a govenment is legally bound to uphold, and you can use a court to enforce that. If a "right" is not legally enforceable, it is nothing more than a "wish". You are correct that that the constitution was amended and will likely continue to be amended. IMV, those admendments either clarified or added rights. I disagree that thy were simply implementation of existing rights. As I said a right which is not enforcable is no right at all.

The fact that you acknowledge it would require an amendment would mean that you concede that the Constitution AS IT NOW STANDS, provides no such guaranteed right. Of course you are free if you get enough support to amend it in whichever way you see fit. The question is not how you see the Declaration of Independance, the question is what legal standing it has. If it doesn't have legal standing, you can treasure it as much as you like, but it doesn't entitle you to much. I would welcome any cites on understanding if this document has any legal standing. ---------------------------------------------- I also find it curious that, given your position that the drafters of the Declaration of Independance declared an "inalienable" right to life and that implied medical care, why didn't they immediatly implement a universal health care program? You would think that they would have understood their intent and woudl have acted according to their intent. The fact that they did not, would indicate to me that their intent on the right to "life" did not extend to state-provided healthcare.

I should add one other thing, if you truly beleive that the words embedded in the Declaration of Independance guranteed you the right to healthcare, your course of action to obtain it is simple. Sue the federal government on that basis. I'm not a lawyer, but my guess is you would lose.

Actually I don't see or agree with your reading of the implication. I don't believe any court does either. Certainly in Canada court decisions have favoured the position that funding is a choice the government makes, however it is not a "right" of the constitiutients. What is not clear is what the government is constitutionally obliged to fund vs what it chooses to fund because of political decisions. The availaiblity of funding doesn't imply constitutional obligation. To extend your position to healthcare. The government provides funding to make sure you have access to healthcare, so you can live. It doesn't have to provide you life itself. In fact constitutionally all it is obliged to do is not impede your ability to live as opposed to proactively support your lfie. Actually it is very relevant as one document has the power of law and the other one is nothing more than a historical document. If the people who drafted the Declaration of Independance thought it was relevant to preserve certain rights, it woudl be embedded in the Constitution. Please show some Supreme Court cites where the rights were based upon what was drafted in the Declaration of Independance.

First, as pointed out previously the Declaration of Independance doesn't guarantee any rights, it is the US Constitution. Actually if I can read English properly the "inalienable" applies to the "persuit of happiness" as well. You seem to be arguing that "inalienable" implies funding. From what source did you draw that conclusion? Does liberty being an "inalienable" right mean that I should expect the government to fund my travels? Personally, I suppot the concept that you should not have to fund services you don't want to partake in. That includes the war in Iraq. If the majority of American people had that ability and witheld funding, think of how much shorter the war would have been.

Actually our need for food, clothing or shelter is not related to income either. We all need it to survive. Income determines how well we can satisify that need. Exactly the same analogy should be applied to medical care. The more money you earn, the better care you should be able to buy. If you want to apply the same analogy to medical care, then you have to define what "basic" care consist of. With food or clothing there is a practical physical limit on how much can be consumed, with medcal care what is basic is subjective. In addition, the basic of food and clothing to survive is the same as 500 years ago. With medical care I assume you dont' have the same definition of "basic" medical care as 500 years ago. The closer anlogy for medical care is insurance. An unforseen event can bankrupt an individual, nevertheless premiums need to be paid in relation to the risk undertaken. The risk is spread among many individuals but regardless the premium reflects risk not income. Pretty much all of this is your opinion of what is "better" or what constitutes a "civilized" country. My opinion is different. For me "civilized" country is one that encourages self-sufficiency and promotes individual responsibilty for the costs incurred. At least we agree on one thing. You said "Someone has to pay for it.". If you aren't paying for it yourself then someone else is paying those cost for you, and that was my original point.

You have avoided answering the question of funding which is key to the discussion. Whichever right is accorded doesn't imply the right that the government provide funding to fulfill that right. You never answered the question, do you think the government must fund your "pursuit of happiness", or your arms? If you don't, why would you interpret the rights differently for medical care?

Your interpretation is really quite a stretch. The bill of rights doesn't entitle anyone to happiness. If I need new Ferrari to make me happy, should I expect the rest of the taxpayers to buy me one?

True, but one difference is that substantial amount of interstate funding comes from use-based fees or taxes (eg gasoline taxes, tolls) I guess that depends upon what the mandate is for the National Guard. We don’t have the National Guard is in Canada, but if their mandate is disaster relief, then it would seem to me, that those who have greater propensity to use the NG should contribute more. Same thing applies as medical care. I never said it was exclusive to medical care. For many services, it is someone else’s money which pays for services consumed. It does apply to health care, but is not exclusive to health care. I don’t get how you can equate that paying according to their capacity to pay is the same as contributing equally. We don’t operate that way in most other non-governmental parts of society. For example, go buy a meal in a restaurant and tell them you’d like to pay for it according to your ability to pay. Sure, all true but it doesn’t negate the fact that someone else’s funds subsidize them. My neighbours benefit from my well-kept lawn, so should I expect them to contribute to the maintenance? I believe that the bulk of the cost for health and education should be borne personally, just as we expect the cost of feeding and clothing is borne personally. You have simply pointed out it is your opinion, you have not provided any evidence that this interpretation is correct. The guarantee doesn’t guarantee funding for it any more than the right to bear arms, implies the government must pay for people’s arms.

I hope you too are always in top health, because anything less will inevitably cost everyone else. Some care, some don't. It should matter not whether the guy starving is next door or on the other side of the world. In either case, IMO, the care should be expressed through charitable giving, not through forced taxation. Just as some people don't particularly care about whether their fellow man starves, some people have a sense of entitlement who don't care who pays for a service, so long as they get it for "free".

The question is not a binary yes/no question. To determine if "someone else is paying for it" you need to look at how much is contributed. Many people contribute very little in taxes yet consume a large number of publicly provided services. The difference between what they contribute and what the consume is what someone else must pay for. Do you think everyone's contribution is in line with their public services consumption?

It's easy to want public care when you want someone else to pay for it.

You keep promising to stop posting. This is the third time in ths thread you had said you would do so. You even said goodbye. Yet you still post. Pesonally I couldn't care one way or another. Post or don't post it's up to you. Well a convention is not a direct vote if it involves the use of representatives or delegates. Note that use of the word "direct" explicitly states that there are no intermediaries involved. A referendum and a plebiscite are essentially the same thing (See Plebiscite) and can in no way be equated to a "convention". Dancer is right, quite a contortion you're trying to pull in order to save face. Actually I'm not comparing any two systems so I can't be talking "apples and oranges". I am specficly taking about amending procedure. By your own admission I have shown that the amedment process for the US doesn't REQUIRE a direct vote by the people. You don't like it, then go blame the English parlimentary system which we inherited. You boast so proudly about the language and culture handed down from British ancestors. Go criticize them then for your percieved lack of democracy. Further, if you don't like it, convince about 16 million other Canadians and elect representatives to change it. What does "technical by nature" even mean? I have asked you to show that there is a different process for amendments which were "technical by nature" over other amendment types. You have been unable to show any such difference. So you are suggesting that the majority of Canadians were taken in by this "misleading" title, and that the media, opposition parties, and nobody sounded the alarm that the content was different than the tite. Further you are suggesting that Canadians were too lazy or stupid to read the contents themselves and come to their own conclusions. Moreover, after living with this document for more than 20 years, you are suggesting that Canadians are still being fooled by the document title? You mean the way provinces like Quebec have their own Charter? Quebec Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms. Hmm, it would seem that your attempts to prove that the US is so much more democratic are falling flat. So? that only deals with the separation of powers between federal and state governments. We too have explicit definitions on what falls under Provincial juristiction and what falls under Federal juristiction. I don't see the point you are tryig to make. The separation of powers between federal and state governments is different in Canada vs the US. I agree with that. The US states in many ways have juristiciton over more issues that Canadian provinces. All of this is besides the fact. You still need to mobilize support across the juristictional area be it state, provincial, or Federal in order to amend the constitution or bill of rights. ------------------------------------------------------------------- BTW, I meant to post this last time but forgot. You keep bemoaning the fact that Trudeau never put the Charter to a referendum. In fact he offered to, but it was provincial premiers who stopped him from doing so. "The Night of Long Knives"

Dude, damn right you're not. I hope you aren't anyone else's mentor either. How does that have anything to do with your allegation that US Bill of Rights was adopted by refrendum? So then you agree: 1. The US congress can unilaterally implement amendments if they so choose 2. That those amendments were done without a referendum. All you are pointing out is that changes to state constitution can be made by public referendum if the state legsilature chooses to let it happen. So what? They have their procedure for constitutional amendment, we have ours. The onus is on the poster who makes a statement to back it up, not reverse onus to prove you wrong. The reason your claims are so suspect and require evidence, is that time and again you have made statements, in this very thread, and have been proved wrong. I an enumerate them if you so wish. From what I've see your general source of evidence is your obversations, talk radio, and web content from known racists. I'm trying to determine which of this "reliable" sources you have used to formulate your latest opinion. As far a your link. it seems to be nothing but a list of gripes against the French language and peoples by disgrunteld civil servants. Some of the gripes are legimiate issues whch I agree ought to be addressed. Many are noting but whining about trivial issues and incidents. Regardless the link doesn't at all prove your point that the Charter was the cause of undue spending on Quebec and the French Language. In fact your cite shows considerable spending as a result of the Official Bilingualism Act in 1969, legislation well before the Charter. So yet again we have a cite which is irrevelant to your point. No I don't. Maybe they aren't well informed. Maybe they just dont' care enough about it to be informed. Regardless, they seem to have made a determination on whether they favour it or not based upon the infomation they have. No, nor have I particularly cared. Do you have any such evidence? Actually the process is documented in Part V "PROCEDURE FOR AMENDING THE CONSTITUTION OF CANADA". All you have to do is elect enough representatives (ie delegates) who agree with you. Apparently very few, save you considers it enough of a priority to do so. Yes pity you are not, but I am thankful that I am not like you. Yes, I am that. Is this another one of your silly wild ass guesses again as to my background? LMAO. Amusing. Well, apparently your family doesn't feel the same as you or they would be packing up and leaving with you. I guess that makes you the odd man out in your family. Tell me, does you family consider you as tolerant as I do? Note that although my bad spelling makes me the last person to correct anyone's language use, in the name of protecting one of our official languages, I feel compelled to act. What you refer to as 'toute suis' should really be "Tout de suite". Should we add remedial French to the remedial English and Math? Afterall how can we maintain the culture of Canada when people can't speak the language properly.

How new is Mississauga's infrastructure and who paid of it?

How is it possible then that Mississauga doesn't face the same budget crisis as Toronto when they too suffered the same downloading?