Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by Eumenes 580 days ago
where in the constitution does it say I have to pay for someone's drug addiction rehab or cosmetic eye surgery? i don't expect anyone to cover my vices or vanity. not wanting to fund vice/vanity is not "controlling behavior" .. by all means, kill yourself with substance abuse or change your eye color, but expecting your fellow citizen to bail you out is certainly a form of "control".
2 comments
Spivak 580 days ago
Drug-addiction rehab — yes, because that's a medically necessary therapy for people suffering from addiction.

Cosmetic procedures — no, wouldn't be covered.

Locking you out of public healthcare as described by the parent if you have ever engaged in behavior deemed too risky, absolutely not. That is the part that is controlling.

link
kelseyfrog 580 days ago
The constitution places limits on the government. Unless you're telling me that you are literally The United States Federal Government, it doesn't apply to you.
link
Eumenes 580 days ago
Actually, the federal government doesn't interrupt the Constitution, the courts do. Fortunately with the Chevron deference, unelected bureaucrats and "experts" can no longer do whatever they please. Congress, who directly represent the People, will have to craft laws/policy and not the smug busybodies of DC. This is Democracy.
link
kelseyfrog 580 days ago
> the federal government doesn't interrupt the Constitution, the courts do

I'm hate to be the one to inform you, but the court system is part of the government. Indeed courts pertaining to federal laws are part of the federal government.

Again, unless you are literally the federal government of the United States, the constitution doesn't constrain your actions.

link
Eumenes 580 days ago
No need to be obtuse. The judiciary is obviously one of 3 branches of the government, but the federal government as a whole operates within the framework of the Constitution as interpreted by the courts/judiciary. This was established by Marbury v. Madison in 1803: https://www.archives.gov/milestone-documents/marbury-v-madis...

In the context of this thread, I was replying to a comment saying that it was "unconstitutional" to "control" public healthcare funded elective procedures, as a form of "eugenics" ... quite ridiculous.

link
kelseyfrog 580 days ago
No, you were making a literal statement about the constitution in a way that wasn't logically valid.

It's a common tactic to make an egregious error and the dial it back until with hedges and constraints until the other person concedes. It's embarrassing.

There are plenty of valid ways to make your point. Choose one of those instead.

link