Supreme Court 2A Case tomorrow, NRA friend or foe...

[hoosiertriangle]

You make a good point, but I disagree with you specifically on healthcare. By analogy, you have a right to representation (court appointed attorney) even if you can't pay for one. One is provided because most attorneys and the free market wouldn't provide a service for the indigent criminal were it otherwise. Should healthcare be the same as the right to representation? I think not. If you can't find a doctor that will take your case, should the government provide this for you, like the court appointed attorney. Again I don't thank so.

We could argue honestly about whether the government should provide court appointed attorneys to the indigent, but at least there is a textual basis from which to support the argument that the Constitution protects the right of representation. I don't think the same argument can be made for healthcare.

You were born with the right to healthcare. And you have the right to pay for it. The problem is when people claim to have rights and demand that another person pay for it. That's not a right, that's an entitlement.

The sooner we (re)discover that the better, and it would put an end to all kinds of crap.

 

[kludge]

triangle, I think we disagree only on the meaning/use of the words.

The Constitutionally protected right is the right to counsel. Being provided an attorney is an entitlement attached to a right - one that the justices saw fit to impose upon the states to provide. "If you cannot afford one, one will be provided for you." One which is understandable, due not only to the complexities of the law itself but more (IMO) due to the nature of the procedural rules. Am I entitled to the same level or representation that O.J. got? No, I am not - which is why I say it's not a right, but an entitlement.

I "can't afford" a lawyer either. I'd lose my house, my cars, my savings, my 401k, my family of 7 would be homeless and without a vehicle to go to work in, but in order to claim "I can't afford a lawyer" that's what would have to happen.

The standard of need required for receiving the heathcare entitlements in this country is not even close the the standard of need required to claim that I can't afford an attorney.

However, the same argument I made for the law could be applied to medicine, due to the compexities. However in the case before us now (re:healthcare) instead of just having "a doctor" the entitlement would be "you get O.J.'s doctor" or, maybe more precicely... "a doctor will be appointed for you"... "if we think you need one." Now, since I'm not free to choose my own, we've actually destroyed the "right to healthcare".

Sure, reversing Slaughter-House may open pandora's box, but I think we seriously need to address the issues of personal liberties denied because of it. And it would likely take another century before all of the susequent rulings could be addressed.

But first we need to understand the difference between rights (whether they be priviledges and/or immunities) and entitlements.

Gay marriage (I'm opposed by the way) is one of those things that would be fought under the P/I clause, that could not be argued under due process.

If it weren't for the fact that the gov't is already denying P/I to gays (e.g. medical decision making, inheritances), the issue would likely not even be an issue. Personally, if I name someone in writing, and it's witnessed and done in good faith, as my voice in times of crisis or as my beneficiary, then the State can't touch it. The fact that they do/have is the reason it's an issue.

If people treated others equally under the law there would have been no need for the 14th Amendment, but as a sad commentary on human behavior, it IS needed.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

Gitlin? My Google-fu appears to be weak

Gitlow v. New York (1925).

Pardon my spoonerism of the two cases I was thinking of.

 

[CarmelHP]

I think the proper analogy is the First Amendment after Gitlin. That took decades.

That's the first thing I thought of, but rejected it as I just find it hard to give the ACLU credit for anything.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

But, but the ACLU is safeguarding our rights, Carmel.

 

[Bill of Rights]

While that's true, it is only fully true of ACLU-Nevada.
Second Amendment | ACLU of Nevada

Blessings,
Bill