I hope everybody noticed that ...

First, I wasn't trying to cover the entire gambit of rights belonging to the individual human, nor discern where they come from (of which I agree with your analysis). I just picked a few choice ones for comparison and said the feds "guarantee" them, not grant them. But what I hope everybody noticed is that you DID NOT offer just why Obama was wrong, as I did. I'm sure you have a reason, but hey guy - don't agree with my conclusion, but then knock how I got there without offering how YOU arrived at that same conclusion.

See, that's the difficulty if you dislike my argument. Which will you use to explain WHY he is wrong? And while we're at it, I think you slightly misunderstood my argument regarding constructionist insinuations. The acts you mentioned regarding executive military intervention may or may not have been constitutional, true. However, I wasn't arguing whether or not a specific action was constitutional, I was arguing whether or not a certain service -in this case health care - was a inalienable human right endowed by our creator and protected by the government or not. You see the difference? These various government interventions be they military or workplace fairness (in the various forms you mentioned) are all established legal precedent based on equal right amendments (I can't site the specific ones of each you mentioned) or some aspect of a right guaranteed in the constitution. In other word's they were established based on various interpretations of constitutional amendments, or other precedents (which themselves were based on some interpretation of constitutionality).

So my point of breaking it down to a constructionist argument is because Obama didn't say it was a "civil right" or a right based on any other aspect of the constitution. He simply stated "it is the right of every American", as if those words - health care - were themselves in the constitution. That's the key phrase, a "right." "Rights" are a specific thing, specifically spelled out, and health care is no where within them. Hell, the Department of Education isn't spelled out in the constitution, that doesn't mean it is in fact unconstitutional. But advocates of the DOE aren't going around saying that public education is a "right" in and of itself either. They are basing that advocation of universal access to a public education on a specific part of the constitution that Obama has yet to offer up as the argument for health care being a human right. Had he based the right of health care for every American on a specific right within the constitution I would take apart his flawed interpretation of that amendment, clause or section. However, he simply stated it was a "RIGHT", as if the words "health care" appeared in the constitution - thus I think a constructionist argument works, until the time he offers me a portion of the constitution in which he interprets as the basis for a right to health care (and then I'll be happy to take apart that specific interpretation ... he ... he).