John Mackey, CEO of Whole Foods, spouts off in the WSJ.
The recent ("activist") Heller decision to apply the 2nd amendment to individuals,shows how the definition of "rights" evolves - even for supposed strict constructionists. The majority's reasoning is based on "historical background" and not on a strict reading of the Constitution itself.
So when Mackey writes that
Health care is a service that we all need, but just like food and shelter it is best provided through voluntary and mutually beneficial market exchanges. A careful reading of both the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution will not reveal any intrinsic right to health care, food or shelter. That's because there isn't any. This "right" has never existed in America- it just makes me want to scream.
Based on the "historical background" surrounding the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, would Mackey support repeal of every amendment that granted "new" rights... to Blacks? to women? etc.? Because by "historical background" the majority concluded
What Congress did in drafting the Amendment, the Court said, was “to codify a pre-existing right, rather than to fashion a new one.”
By that standard, all but a sliver of American society - white male landowners - have any legitimate Constitutional rights to be ascertained by Mackey's "careful reading" technique.
The mind reels. Back to law school assignments...