Your emotion is overtaking your intellect...

While I agree that health care is NOT a "right" as the Constitution defines them to be... the Rights guaranteed by that same Constitution DO NOT constitute the ONLY rights we, as individual human beings, enjoy.

The Bill of Rights "protects" those rights from abuse by the Federal government... it is a guaranty of that RIGHT... but the RIGHT itself comes from our CREATOR, who ENDOWED all of us with them in a manner that is UNALIENABLE in nature.

Our RIGHT to speak our mind cannot be infringed upon by the Federal Government, as long as it doesn't directly hurt or threaten someone else... but no venue or audience is to be provided by the Feds (as you aptly pointed out). The same is true of our RIGHT to practice our faith, hold public meetings, have grievances redressed, maintain the sanctity of our homes and property... the Bill of Rights PROTECTS these, but does not GIVE them.

For the last 90 plus years, this nation has functioned under a Federal system that guaranteed "fair and equitable" treatment within the workplace. This includes everything from the 40-hour work week and a Federally-mandated minimum wage (which Ryan hates) to the Family Medical Leave Act of 1993 (which Ryan took full advantage of at every opportunity). We could argue for days about the necessity of any one of the dozens of facets of Federal intervention in the workplace when it comes to employer-employee relations... but the facts remain clear that precedent is on the side of the intervention.

I firmly believe that the intervention we have seen has benefited this society far more than it has hurt it. I have heard the arguments against the minimum wage, and am willing to discuss this at length at anytime... but that aside, we can look at the abuses in the child-labor arena, minority labor abuses, sexual discrimination in the workplace, unfair labor and compensation actions, racism, violence, and neglect that was THE hallmark of industry in this nation prior to 1910, and we can see that 99% of those abuses and problems have been adequately addressed in the century since.

My point is NOT that Ryan is wrong in the premise that Obama's position concerning health care as a Constitutional RIGHT is in err... I believe it IS in err.

I just don't care for his "insinuation" that a "constructionist" view of the Constitution is the right defense against Obama, in this regard. We can use a "literal" view of the Constitution to show that health care isn't a guaranteed right... no problem. However, that same view of the Constitution would make EVERY President since FDR in complete violation of the Constitutional definition of the ROLE of President. There is NO Constitutional defense for what Kennedy did in Cuba, or for what Nixon did in Cambodia, or for what Reagan did in Grenada, or Bush in Panama, or Clinton in Somalia... and I STILL think much of what Bush Jr. has done in Iraq would have a tough time standing up to the yard-stick of the Founding Fathers (although he did have the blessings of Congress... no argument there). Hell... I could make the argument that Lincoln was WRONG in how he handled much of the Civil War, if I ONLY stuck to the literal reading of the Constitution!

Obama's wrong... I agree. Just be careful what brush you use to paint him as such, because a wide enough brush will cover more than you think.