“Over in Britain, the opposition is more direct. The Guardian’s Kevin Powell called the debate “surreal” in his Monday column. “Wasn’t the point to make sure the richest and most powerful nation on the planet could protect its own people, as other nations do?”
The above from the leftist Guardian explains their confusion. Replace “nation” with “government” and the fog starts to lift. Ask “protect its own people from whom?” and things become clearer still.
BTTT. That's an excellent observation.
Constitutionalism begins in Article VI:
with the simple statement the Constitution is the supreme law of the land.
Any law enacted that is contrary to the Constitution is unconstitutional. Unconstitutional laws are null and void.
Somehow, this simple progression seems to be beyond so many Euros. But this progression is at the very heart of limited government: our government is limited by its very design. Our Constitution lists the structure and explicit powers of our federal government.
I suspect that the Euros also have just as poor comprehension of the equally important 9th and 10th amendments:
Amendment X: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
Apparently, many Euros agree with the liberal nostrum that government does things “for your own good.” They cannot understand that no one entity knows whats good for everyone. They tyranny of the majority is something else many of them can’t grasp. Interestingly enough, even a number of the commenters who appeared to be English did not agree with article. Obviously though, many Brits and Euros have no concept of the U.S. constitution.
“...is there not a constitutional right to affordable healthcare?”
No, there is not.
Especially if you have a king and queen.