Originally Posted By RC Collins One of my favorite columnists talks about bogus "rights." Keep in mind that he's talking about government actions, NOT all of society (volunteering, charity, etc.) <a href="http://www.gmu.edu/departments/economics/wew/articles/06/bogus.html" target="_blank">http://www.gmu.edu/departments /economics/wew/articles/06/bogus.html</a> >>Do people have a right to medical treatment whether or not they can pay? What about a right to food or decent housing?<<
Originally Posted By TomSawyer >>Would a U.S. Supreme Court justice hold that these are rights just like those enumerated in our Bill of Rights?<< Wow - that shows a fundamental lack of understanding about what the Bill of Rights enumerates. It is a limitation on government, not a granting of rights to the People. The Constitution does not enumerate any rights of the people. It does say that the people have certain inalienable rights and says that among those rights are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. And it says that any rights not specifically modified by the Constitution are retained by the people. So do people have a right to health care, housing and food? Yes. The question is really whether or not the government has the obligation to provide it - but if we truly are a Christian nation, founded on Christian principles, is there really any appropriate answer to that question other than "yes"?
Originally Posted By cmpaley >>Would a U.S. Supreme Court justice hold that these are rights just like those enumerated in our Bill of Rights?<< Well, since the Constitution specifically says: "The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." (Amendment IX) I guess a Supreme Court justice COULD very well do so.
Originally Posted By RC Collins But the Bill of Rights does not require that anyone else pay without consent, which is what the bogus "rights" do. Congress is obligated to protect free speech by the First Amendment. It isn't obligated to pay for your AT&T bill.
Originally Posted By TomSawyer >>It isn't obligated to pay for your AT&T bill.<< But it isn't expressly forbidden from doing so if that is what the people ask of it.
Originally Posted By StillThePassHolder Granted, I've only read Williams' article twice now (and quickly both times) but I'm at a loss to figure exactly what his gripe is.
Originally Posted By TomSawyer I think he's mad because he's being forced to help the poor against his will.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <Wow - that shows a fundamental lack of understanding about what the Bill of Rights enumerates. It is a limitation on government, not a granting of rights to the People. > Absolutely correct. <The Constitution does not enumerate any rights of the people. It does say that the people have certain inalienable rights and says that among those rights are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.> Actually Tom, that's the Declaration of Independence. The Constitution is mute on that. <And it says that any rights not specifically modified by the Constitution are retained by the people.> That it does say.
Originally Posted By TomSawyer >>Actually Tom, that's the Declaration of Independence. The Constitution is mute on that.<< I hang my head in shame.
