Michael Moore's 'Sicko' Scrutinizes Canada's Healthcar

[Renegade]

A lot of rights weren't immediately implemented, which is why we have a constitution that can be ammended. Our forefathers saw the need for future amendments, and provided for it. For example, even though the Declaration of Independance claims that all men are created equal, blacks and women didn't have the right to vote at the time. An amendment took care of that injustice. The Civil Rights Act was based on the Declaration of Indepence's claim that all men are created equal. Your argument that 'it wasn't implemented at the time therefore it's not a right' holds no water, and history is proof of that.

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.

Edited August 31, 2007 by Renegade

[Guest American Woman]

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.

I'm guessing that if someone doesn't have the money for health coverage/health care, they don't have the money to hire a lawyer to take on the United States government.

But as I already said, our government is set up so we can make amendments to our constitution to take care of injustices and add rights that weren't implemented at the time the Constitution was first writtten. Our forefathers didn't set it up so people would have to sue the government to get rights implemented, but rather so that rights could be added.

The examples I gave were rights that were guarenteed by the principles of our founding fathers, but weren't implemented. Your line of thought is saying that women and blacks didn't have the right to vote previous to the amendements. Evidently you would have taken the stand with a woman or Black who was saying the Declaration of Independece says they have the right to vote that no, you don't think they have that right. Same with equal rights. You would have said no, you don't have the right to equality. And that's simply not true.

So it's not a wish. It's an injustice; just as women and blacks not being able to vote wasn't a "wish" that they could vote, but an injustice-- injustices that were corrected not by winning law suits, but by changing the laws.

[Renegade]

I'm guessing that if someone doesn't have the money for health coverage/health care, they don't have the money to hire a lawyer to take on the United States government.

Probably not, but even if they did it would be a foolish proposition to pursue because as it stands now, they would lose.

But as I already said, our government is set up so we can make amendments to our constitution to take care of injustices and add rights that weren't implemented at the time the Constitution was first writtten. Our forefathers didn't set it up so people would have to sue the government to get rights implemented, but rather so that rights could be added.

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.

The examples I gave were rights that were guarenteed by the principles of our founding fathers, but weren't implemented. Your line of thought is saying that women and blacks didn't have the right to vote previous to the amendements. Evidently you would have taken the stand with a woman or Black who was saying the Declaration of Independece says they have the right to vote that no, you don't think they have that right. Same with equal rights. You would have said no, you don't have the right to equality. And that's simply not true.

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.

So it's not a wish. It's an injustice; just as women and blacks not being able to vote wasn't a "wish" that they could vote, but an injustice-- injustices that were corrected not by winning law suits, but by changing the laws.

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.

Edited August 31, 2007 by Renegade

[bush_cheney2004]

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.

Agreed...and that is that, the logical conclusion that those of us with a firm understanding of constitution, rights, and laws reached several pages ago. More Americans may seek to change federal or state law to include a larger portion of the uninsured or all citizens even without such an ammendment, as has been done with Medicare, Medicaid, and SCHIP. But as of today, governement funded healthcare is not a right and never has been in the USA or Canada.

I find it even more ironic that the opposing argument has been made based on the American Declaration of Independence and Constitution, which specifically establishes a republic with enumerated government power that stems from the will of the governed.

[Guest American Woman]

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.

Wrong. Amending the constitution to give women and blacks the right to vote didn't require enough people to agree. The Civil Rights Act didn't require enough people agreeing. Those amendments were made whether people agreed or not, because "all men are created equally." There was a basis for those rights being made legal. On the other hand, there is no basis for the "right to a 4000sq ft house and an SUV." The fact that you are comparing luxuries to such basic rights as the right to vote and the right to receive care when ill makes me wonder where you are coming from.

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.

They didn't have the legal right, but they had the moral right. That's why the Consitution was amended-- based on the principles this country was founded on.

Look up the definition of a "right" and you will see definitions that include:

--that which is due to anyone by just claim, legal guarantees, moral principles, etc.: women's rights; Freedom of speech is a right of all Americans.

--that which is morally, legally, or ethically proper: to know right from wrong.

--a moral, ethical, or legal principle considered as an underlying cause of truth, justice, morality, or ethics.

Just because something is not law doesn't mean it's not a basic right. It's not a law in Saudi Arabia et al to treat women equally to men, but that doesn't mean they don't have the right to be treated equally. Or don't you think they do since it's not a law?

[jbg]

Wrong. Amending the constitution to give women and blacks the right to vote didn't require enough people to agree. The Civil Rights Act didn't require enough people agreeing. Those amendments were made whether people agreed or not, because "all men are created equally." There was a basis for those rights being made legal. On the other hand, there is no basis for the "right to a 4000sq ft house and an SUV." The fact that you are comparing luxuries to such basic rights as the right to vote and the right to receive care when ill makes me wonder where you are coming from.

They didn't have the legal right, but they had the moral right. That's why the Consitution was amended-- based on the principles this country was founded on.

Last I checked, an amendment requires 2/3 of each House and 3/4 of the states to agree. As a practical matter that's strong consensus. A statute requires a majority of each House, and a Presidential signature.

[Pliny]

The fight for the right to vote was not entirely about the right to vote but the right to be recognized as persons under the law.

Women were not considered persons, nor were blacks at certain times in the past. It was required that the definition of the term "persons" be changed to include women and blacks in order to grant them equality under the law. It was not an injustice before that as it was generally agreed that women were not persons. In hindsight, we today view it as an injustice. It would be an injustice if it occurred today that a woman was refused the opportunity to vote on the basis of her gender. It was not an injustice prior to their inclusion under the definition of "person". It was the way society was just as slavery was accepted as a part of society. It was not illegal and it was not considered unjust. It was how things were. Granting the right of women to be included as persons under the law was not necessarily an inevitability and if they had remained outside the definition it would not be an injustice today if they were not considered persons under the law. It was societies definition and perception of a person that had to change to be inclusive before laws could apply to them. Prior to the point where women and blacks were considered persons it was not unjust to treat them as chattel under the law. In hindsight we can say it was unjust but that was not the perception at the time.

As an analogy, the discovery of bacteria by Louis Pasteur brought new understanding and a change in human sanitary habits. We cannot say that prior to the implementation of these sanitary habits individuals were irresponsibly causing disease. And no one does because the information was not known or obvious to anyone.

The obviousness today that women and blacks are persons was not the understanding at the time prior to their inclusion under the definition of person, it was considered by some that that perception needed to change and they fought for and won agreement to be included as persons. Thinking anything other than that women and blacks are persons would be considered today sheer lunacy, and the consideration and perception held prior of them not being persons seems impossible to conceive.

When it is stated that a person has the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. It means that no one has the right to end or take away, or threaten to end or take away your life, your liberty or your pursuit of happiness. It does not mean you are entitled to be provided anything at all except that you be secure in your person and property. Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness is not something someone owes you. It is your right, you have it, and no one is allowed to take it away. It is not a guarantee of food, clothing, shelter, health care, education, or anything material - especially from government. I don't know if you, American woman, get that distinction.

Government cannot provide any largesse without first extracting it from someone else which is totally unfair and totally unequal treatment under the law. If it proceeds to act in such manner it can no longer deliver it's primary mandate, which is justice and the sanctity of person and property can no longer be guaranteed because it will enact legislation granting itself the right to the property of it's citizens.

[Renegade]

Wrong. Amending the constitution to give women and blacks the right to vote didn't require enough people to agree.

Really? Then I must be misinformed of the procedure for constitutional amendment.

You said this:

For example, even though the Declaration of Independance claims that all men are created equal, blacks and women didn't have the right to vote at the time. An amendment took care of that injustice.

I'm going t take your word for it that a consttutional amendment was necessary. To create an costitutional amendment here is the process:

Congress can propose an amendment by a two-thirds vote (of a quorum, not necessarily of the entire body) of the Senate and of the House of Representatives. Under the second method, two-thirds (2/3) of the state legislatures may convene and "apply" to Congress to hold a national convention, whereupon Congress must call such a convention for the purpose of considering amendments. As of 2007, only the first method (proposal by Congress) has been used.

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".

The Civil Rights Act didn't require enough people agreeing.

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.

Those amendments were made whether people agreed or not, because "all men are created equally." There was a basis for those rights being made legal.

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.

On the other hand, there is no basis for the "right to a 4000sq ft house and an SUV." The fact that you are comparing luxuries to such basic rights as the right to vote and the right to receive care when ill makes me wonder where you are coming from.

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.

They didn't have the legal right, but they had the moral right. That's why the Consitution was amended-- based on the principles this country was founded on.

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?

Look up the definition of a "right" and you will see definitions that include:

--that which is due to anyone by just claim, legal guarantees, moral principles, etc.: women's rights; Freedom of speech is a right of all Americans.

--that which is morally, legally, or ethically proper: to know right from wrong.

--a moral, ethical, or legal principle considered as an underlying cause of truth, justice, morality, or ethics.

Can you please cite where you are pulling this definition?

Just because something is not law doesn't mean it's not a basic right. It's not a law in Saudi Arabia et al to treat women equally to men, but that doesn't mean they don't have the right to be treated equally. Or don't you think they do since it's not a law?

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.

[Guest American Woman]

I'm just going to say one thing for now: I'm not playing word games. "Enough people to support it" is entirely different from saying "enough congressional support." If you had meant Congressional support, Renegade, then that's what you should have said. The fact remains that it doesn't always take "enough support of the people" (and again, people as in citizens of the country) to get a law passed; to get an amendment added. The people didn't vote on the Civil Rights issue, and I'm guessing if they had, it wouldn't have passed. It created a lot of controversy, a lot of problems. It wasn't passed because it's what the majority of the people wanted. If minorities had to rely on the support of "enough of the people" who are in the majority, where would that leave them? Women getting the right to vote, the Civil Rights Act, etc., were based on the foundation that all men are created equal.

So even though YOU doubt if the Declaration of Independence had anything to do with it, it did. Even though you think the claim that the amendments I cited were made based on the words of the Declaration of Indepence is "hogwash," you are wrong.

The Voting Acts Right had to be reauthorized in 2006. These are the words that were used at the Senate session:

I stood on the Senate floor to pay tribute to the Voting Rights Act on the occasion of its 40th Anniversary. In my remarks on that day, I urged my colleagues to rise above the partisanship that often plagues this body and renew the promise of the landmark civil rights legislation by reauthorizing the key provisions that were set to expire in 2007.

I am extremely pleased that the Senate today is poised to take action on this important reauthorization measure. Without enforcement and accountability of our Nation’s voting laws for ALL Americans, the words of the Declaration of Independence, declaring “All men are created equal”, the words written in the Constitution guaranteeing the inalienable right to vote, and the maxim of one person – one vote, those principles enshrined in our elected laws, are little more than empty words.

----------------------

President Johnson had signed the Civil Rights Act of 1964, proclaiming that in America, as he said: We believe that all men are created equal, yet many are denied equal treatment. We believe that all men have certain unalienable rights, yet many Americans do not enjoy those rights. We believe that all men are entitled to the blessings of liberty, yet millions are being deprived of those blessings, not because of their own failures, but because of color of the skin.

Link

What's "hogwash" is to say that the principles in Declaration of Independence no longer mean anything in our society today.

One more thing:

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?

How many times are you going to bring this up? How many times do I have to address it? I'll repeat AGAIN. Many amendments based on the Declaration of Independence have been added-- and I cited some. Rights that weren't immediately implemented have been added to the Consititution. That's why the Constitution was set up, from the beginning, with the provision that amendments could be made.

Edited September 1, 2007 by American Woman

[Renegade]

I'm just going to say one thing for now: I'm not playing word games. "Enough people to support it" is entirely different from saying "enough congressional support." If you had meant Congressional support, Renegade, then that's what you should have said. The fact remains that it doesn't always take "enough support of the people" (and again, people as in citizens of the country) to get a law passed; to get an amendment added. The people didn't vote on the Civil Rights issue, and I'm guessing if they had, it wouldn't have passed.

It created a lot of controversy, a lot of problems. It wasn't passed because it's what the majority of the people wanted. If minorities had to rely on the support of "enough of the people" who are in the majority, where would that leave them? Women getting the right to vote, the Civil Rights Act, etc., were based on the foundation that all men are created equal.

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.

So even though YOU doubt if the Declaration of Independence had anything to do with it, it did. Even though you think the claim that the amendments I cited were made based on the words of the Declaration of Indepence is "hogwash," you are wrong.

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 Voting Acts Right had to be reauthorized in 2006. These are the words that were used at the Senate session:

I stood on the Senate floor to pay tribute to the Voting Rights Act on the occasion of its 40th Anniversary. In my remarks on that day, I urged my colleagues to rise above the partisanship that often plagues this body and renew the promise of the landmark civil rights legislation by reauthorizing the key provisions that were set to expire in 2007.

I am extremely pleased that the Senate today is poised to take action on this important reauthorization measure. Without enforcement and accountability of our Nation’s voting laws for ALL Americans, the words of the Declaration of Independence, declaring “All men are created equal”, the words written in the Constitution guaranteeing the inalienable right to vote, and the maxim of one person – one vote, those principles enshrined in our elected laws, are little more than empty words.

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?

What's "hogwash" is to say that the principles in Declaration of Independence no longer mean anything in our society today.

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).

How many times are you going to bring this up? How many times do I have to address it? I'll repeat AGAIN. Many amendments based on the Declaration of Independence have been added-- and I cited some. Rights that weren't immediately implemented have been added to the Consititution. That's why the Constitution was set up, from the beginning, with the provision that amendments could be made.

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.

Edited September 1, 2007 by Renegade

[Renegade]

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.

[geoffrey]

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.

I have a case from the SCC posted previously here that found that the "right to life" actually should mean all Canadians have access to private, user pay medicine.

[Renegade]

I have a case from the SCC posted previously here that found that the "right to life" actually should mean all Canadians have access to private, user pay medicine.

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.

[geoffrey]

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.

No no, that's what I took it as. I posted that to reinforce your point... and the overall situation.

Free universal medical care generally means substandard care with huge waits for everyone. Not the situation I want.

[Guest American Woman]

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.

And I'm saying "the people" don't have to have anything to do with it; that laws/amendments get passed even without "enough people" supporting them. I realize it takes enough congressional representatives, but it doesn't need "enough people" to pass.

I'm willing to be corrected Show me tracability between the Declaration of Independance and Constitutionl amendments.

I already gave examples.

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?

No, I'm not saying all of them do. If I were saying that, that's what I would have said. The ones I cited do, as I already stated, but I never said just the ones I cited did any more than I said they all did.

The fact that one senator references the DoI doesn't prove tracability beyond that one senator.

I cited another major example, which you chose to ignore. I don't feel I need to cite every single reference to prove to you that it does exist. You'll have to do more research on your own if you require more proof.

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?

This has already been explained in this thread.*sigh* One more time. You are free to pursue happiness. The DofI doesn't say happiness is an inalienable right; it says the right to pursue it is. On the other hand, it says life, not the pursuit of life, but life itself, is an inalienable right.

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).

And what I think is hogwash is your claim that I made an assertation that the DoI is the basis for all current and future principles to be enshrined in the Consititution. That is flat out wrong. I never made any such claim.

Actualy I only stated it once. I don't know where you are reading it over and over.

Yes, I see now that you did only state it once. My mistake. I apologize.

Edited September 1, 2007 by American Woman

[Pliny]

An inalienable right is something one has and is not given to you. The Constitution and The Bill of Rights recognize these rights as inalienable. They are not rights that are granted by government. They are rights every person has and no agency can take them away. Government does not recognize health care as an inalienable right. It deems when health care can be provided out of the public purse out of the interest of the public image of politicians. Why should any citizen have public health care if all do not?

Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness are things you have inherently if left on your own and not subject to anyone. They are not gifts from government. They ARE things that can be taken away from you. Health care is not something you were born with and no government can guarantee you will have it, maybe you will sometimes and other times you won't. Economically, it cannot honor this guarantee. It is not necessary to make a commitment economically to guarantee an inalienable right. It costs no one anything for you to have that right.

The American government is the only government in the world that recognizes those inalienable rights in their Constitution. It does not mean it owes you something. It means, we'll make sure you are not oppressed by other people or governments and can get on with life, libery and the pursuit of happiness.

The idea that because you exist the government should owe you something, and because it lives off the avails of others, it must acquire what you feel it owes you from someone else, is in my view rather bizarre and leaning a bit towards tyranny.

[Guest American Woman]

An inalienable right is something one has and is not given to you. The Constitution and The Bill of Rights recognize these rights as inalienable. They are not rights that are granted by government.

Yet the government provides for a military, because of the right of "liberty." That is paid for by us, the people, out of our taxes. And that's whether we agree with our military actions or not. Like I said, we, our children, our grandchildren will all be paying for the disaster that is Iraq. Too many paid with their lives.

Government does not recognize health care as an inalienable right. It deems when health care can be provided out of the public purse out of the interest of the public image of politicians. Why should any citizen have public health care if all do not?

As I've said, the government didn't recognize women and/or Blacks voting at one time, either. So just because the government doesn't recognize health care as a right doesn't mean it's not. And some citizens do have public health care, while others do not. I think all should.

Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness are things you have inherently if left on your own and not subject to anyone. They are not gifts from government. They ARE things that can be taken away from you. Health care is not something you were born with and no government can guarantee you will have it, maybe you will sometimes and other times you won't. Economically, it cannot honor this guarantee. It is not necessary to make a commitment economically to guarantee an inalienable right. It costs no one anything for you to have that right.

If we had public healthcare, then it would be something Americans were born with. But of course it wouldn't be a "gift" from the government, since it comes out of OUR taxes, any more than military protection is a "gift" from the government. And evidently the government does feel it's necessary to make a commitment economically to guarantee the right of liberty.

The American government is the only government in the world that recognizes those inalienable rights in their Constitution. It does not mean it owes you something. It means, we'll make sure you are not oppressed by other people or governments and can get on with life, libery and the pursuit of happiness.

Yes, the American government is the only goverment in the world that recognizes those rights, yet it's the only western nation that doesn't provide its citizens with health care; and it has one of the highest infant mortality rates and lowest life expectancies of the developed nations. Ironic, isn't it?

The idea that because you exist the government should owe you something, and because it lives off the avails of others, it must acquire what you feel it owes you from someone else, is in my view rather bizarre and leaning a bit towards tyranny.

The "government" lives off the avails not of "others," but of every citizen who pays taxes. So it's not acquiring what I feel it owes not 'me,' but every citizen, from others, but rather from ME as well as every tax paying citizen. I find it rather bizarre that you don't feel the same way about education, interstates, the military, social security, police, and every other tax funded program. Why is that all not "leaning a bit toward tyranny?"

Edited September 2, 2007 by American Woman

[Renegade]

And I'm saying "the people" don't have to have anything to do with it; that laws/amendments get passed even without "enough people" supporting them. I realize it takes enough congressional representatives, but it doesn't need "enough people" to pass.

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.

I already gave examples.

I cited another major example, which you chose to ignore. I don't feel I need to cite every single reference to prove to you that it does exist. You'll have to do more research on your own if you require more proof.

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.

No, I'm not saying all of them do. If I were saying that, that's what I would have said. The ones I cited do, as I already stated, but I never said just the ones I cited did any more than I said they all did.

And what I think is hogwash is your claim that I made an assertation that the DoI is the basis for all current and future principles to be enshrined in the Consititution. That is flat out wrong. I never made any such claim.

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?

This has already been explained in this thread.*sigh* One more time. You are free to pursue happiness. The DofI doesn't say happiness is an inalienable right; it says the right to pursue it is. On the other hand, it says life, not the pursuit of life, but life itself, is an inalienable right.

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?

Yes, I see now that you did only state it once. My mistake. I apologize.

no problem.

-----------------------

Can I please ask you to address this because it is at the heart of the matter:

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 free universal medical care". Court decisions (at least in Canada) have not upheld such an intrepretation.

You can take as a given that we agree that there is a moral right to life.

[Guest American Woman]

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.

I'm "dwelling" on it because you don't seem to get it. It's NOT necessary for "enough people" to agree on a law/amendment in order for it to take place. I cited the Civil Rights Act as an example. I've said that minorities rights are to be protected by law even if the majority doesn't agree.

You were talking about "enough people" and then it became (after a snide remark by jbg) 'enough congressional support' and then 'enough people directly or indirectly through their representatives' and I'm saying again that enough people (as in citizens) don't have to agree; that laws/amendments can be made, and have been made, even without "enough people" (and that is NOT the same as "enough Congressional support") agreeing.

So yes. Sometimes Senators and Representatives do act independently of the people because they are not only accountable to the people, they are accountable to the DofI and the Constitution.

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.

Johnson quoting the DoI when pushing the Civil Rights Act through is indeed proof that he WAS using its principles as a source. If you think giving an example like that isn't proof that the DofI isn't merely an historic document with no basis in making today's laws, I guess there is no way of proving it in your mind. As for whether or not it's a "source of law in general," I never said it was! And I've made that perfectly clear; I've said in some instances it is.

I live here. I've studied history here. And the DofI most definitely IS still a crucial part of our foundation, our principles; and it continues to be.

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 free universal medical care". Court decisions (at least in Canada) have not upheld such an intrepretation.

First of all, we're not talking about Canada. Canada doesn't list "life" as an "inalienable right" so I don't expect medical care to be thought of as such.

Secondly, I've already stated that this is not a matter for the courts; it's a matter for Congress. Of course the courts aren't going to uphold something that isn't a law, but as I've stated more than once now (giving examples of the women's vote and the Civil Rights Act), just because something isn't a law doesn't mean the people don't have the right. Again, I repeat, just because Islamic countries don't have a law stating women have to be treated equally doesn't mean women in those countries don't have the right to be treated equally. I would hate you see anyone argue that they don't have the right to be treated as decently as men just because it's not a law.

I'm saying that "life" requires medical care. If you can prove otherwise, I'd like to see your proof, because I'm thinking we'd both agree that when someone is critically ill, they need medical care in order to sustain life. And I can prove that by the fact that too many Americans without health care DIE every year. I can also repeat that the U.S. is the only western nation without universal care and it has the highest infant mortality rate and the lowest life expectancy.

Edited September 2, 2007 by American Woman

[bush_cheney2004]

..I'm saying that "life" requires medical care. If you can prove otherwise, I'd like to see your proof, because I'm thinking we'd both agree that when someone is critically ill, they need medical care in order to sustain life. And I can prove that by the fact that too many Americans without health care DIE every year. I can also repeat that the U.S. is the only western nation without universal care and it has the highest infant mortality rate and the lowest life expectancy.

False on both counts:

1) "Life" does not "require" medical care, as billions of people have lived (and died) normally without such care. (Ironically, the "right" to "abortions" actually ends such life.) The continuation of living may require medical intervention to stem acute or chronic conditions, but these are also part of "life", as is dying. {Nobody gets out of here alive, regardless of make believe rights to the contrary.}

2) There are numerous "western nations" without universal healthcare, and many more non-western ones as well.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:WORLDHEALTH2.png

The USA does have universal access for defined entitlement programs (Congress and states); these are not rights, however, the care provided often is of higher quality than those nations touting universal access to substandard care.

Edited September 2, 2007 by bush_cheney2004

[Guest American Woman]

False on both counts:

1) "Life" does not "require" medical care, as billions of people have lived (and died) normally without such care. (Ironically, the "right" to "abortions" actually ends such life.) The continuation of living may require medical intervention to stem acute or chronic conditions, but these are also part of "life", as is dying. {Nobody gets out of here alive, regardless of make believe rights to the contrary.}

2) There are numerous "western nations" without universal healthcare, and many more non-western ones as well.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:WORLDHEALTH2.png

Of course people have "died normally" without medical care, since we all have to die eventually. What I'm talking about (and I thought this would be clear) are people who die abnormally; people who die because they didn't get medical care that would have sustained their lives. I'd like to know about these billions of people who have lived "normally" without any medical care, though. I'd like some proof of that, along with a link to the source.

"The United States is the only western industrialized nation that fails to provide

universal coverage..." Link

Edited September 2, 2007 by American Woman

[bush_cheney2004]

Of course people have "died normally" without medical care, since we all have to die eventually. What I'm talking about (and I thought this would be clear) are people who die abnormally; people who die because they didn't get medical care that would have sustained their lives. I'd like to know about these billions of people who have lived "normally" without any medical care, though. I'd like some proof of that, along with a link to the source.

"The United States is the only western industrialized nation that fails to provide

universal coverage..." Link

People die for all kinds of reasons, and the "right" to medical care doesn't always prolong life...sometimes, it even hastens death. You see, this false construction of a right to life = right to medical care quickly crumbles under closer scrutiny.

1) Break out your calculator and sum the total number of lives "lived" without the right or even access to medical care since the dawn of civilization. Easily billions.....

2) "the only western industrialized nation " is not what you posted.

There is no right to healthcare.....not in Canada...not in the USA either.

Edited September 2, 2007 by bush_cheney2004

[Guest American Woman]

"The right to health care is recognized in international law ..."

same link as above

Give me proof that those billions of people you refer to lived "normally" and didn't have their lives cut short because of lack of medical care.

I'll give you this: a small majority people may go their lives without needing medical care, and they may even live "normally," but I'm doubting it; but that doesn't mean those who need it don't have the right to it. By the same token, many people never have need of the police, but the service is still provided. It doesn't mean police service isn't necessary. Many never have use for an interstate, that doesn't mean they aren't necessary. They're still provided for.

Billions of people throughout time have lived without an education, but that doesn't mean education isn't necessary.

The fact that the vast majority of people require medical care is enough proof that it is necessary for life. In fact, you still haven't shown me proof that medical care isn't necessary in order to guarentee life for ALL.

Edited September 2, 2007 by American Woman

[bush_cheney2004]

"The right to health care is recognized in international law ..."

same link as above

There is no right to healthcare.....not in Canada...not in the USA either. International law means nothing for such matters.

[bush_cheney2004]

"The right to health care is recognized in international law ..."

same link as above

Give me proof that those billions of people you refer to lived "normally" and didn't have their lives cut short because of lack of medical care.

Get your own proof...start by understanding that life doesn't mean the right to a triple organ transplant, or any other modern therapies, procedures, technology, or pharms. However, back in the day, the witch doctor may see you for a few chickens.

Lives are both very short (abortions), or very long, but always finite. So much for the right to life.