I almost had to get into it with a judge, by way of setting up an appeal in a case I’d already lost, over whether he was a “usurper”. Fortunately the insurer settled before I had to go down that road.

No one likes to be called a usurper.

I’m pretty sure it doesn’t meet the plain meaning of the standards set forth in Article III, Section 3.

Some people argue that the “general welfare” clause gives Congress the right to spend money on anything that advances the “general welfare,” but Madison shot that down in Federalist 41, dismissing as absurd and nothing more than antifederalist scaremongering the claim that the “general welfare” clause might one day be interpreted as a blanket grant of power to Congress.

Unfortunately, the Court has, since the days of Roosevelt’s court-packing scheme, simply chosen to ignore both the plain meaning of the Constitution and Madison’s restatement of it and rule that Congress does indeed have the authority to do pretty much anything not explicitly forbidden in the Bill of Rights. This is treason, but what can we do?

Likewise, we do not have a “constitutional right” to fly on airplanes, as the subject had not been considered important to the framers. But any number of other implicit rights addressed directly or tangentially in the Constitution can be used to argue that the Government cannot arbitrarily interfere with my right to fly on the airline of my choice.

When it comes to health care, there is no Constitutional Right. This does not necessarily prevent the use of government funds, in the common interest, from being spent on health care for all if Congress chooses to do so. Among other things, Congress might decide that I have a right to not be burdened, when I go to the hospital, by the incremental cost that the hospital passes on to me of their treatment of the poor. Congress may think it better to spread this cost amongst all of us, not just the wealthy sick. Now, in your stated concern that you not be involuntarily taxed for things you do not want government to spend money on, are you suggesting that we all pick and choose what we pay our taxes for? For example, could I have refused to pay that increment of my taxes that would have gone to Halliburton?

But I suspect that most people who speak of a “right to health care” are speaking of a moral right to it.

In a similar vein (though I’m less confident in this assumption), I’d guess that the social contract The Economist was suggesting is implicit in the very idea of society. It’s rather a muddled claim when put that way, but the idea that one has certain obligations to the well being of his or her neighbors certainly has strong roots (e.g., Cain’s plaintive question, “Am I my brother’s keeper?”).

But one affirmative right is – Seventh Amendment – “In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, . . . (followed by a negative related to appellate courts not retrying the facts)