All the penumbras are bullshit.

For a perfect example of this, see SCOTUS jurisprudence on the death penalty from Coker v Georgia to present- the recurring theme is that the justices know not just the constitution but also morality and policy better than the writers of the constitution and all the legislatures in the country.

Under such a regime, nearly anything can be “constitutional” if the judges wish it to be so.

I don’t like to count things as rights when they cost money. Inevitably, someone will be unable or unwilling to pay and then you have to start screwing someone over to force a transfer the free market isn’t providing. If we’re lucky, the government overpays and sends the bill to our grandchildren. If we’re unlucky, it devolves into government sponsored theft. Both these outcomes suck.

And regardless of semantics, I don’t approve of his ideas because we can’t afford what he wants to do. Add in 20 or 30 million extra poor people and you can forget about us ever getting rid of the national debt.

Even ignoring the incredibly poor grasp of economics involved, it’s less than reassuring to see that sort of mindset. Freedom of speech, privilege. Free candy, right!

It’s worth pointing out that Edwards is a lawyer. Must have slept through con-law.

Worse still, he probably aced it.

There’s actually a lot of scholarship in this area, and there is a lot of room for using the words “rights” and “privileges” in ways that are not as cut and dried as some might think. A guy named Dworkin has written extensively in this area. There’s some fascinating thinking going on here.

All that said, I’m not defending Edwards since I didn’t listen to his words. I do suspect, however, that his definition of rights differs from Uncle’s, which might mean the criticism is more linguistic than semantic.

Ironically he polls at Number 1 in Tennessee for President. I wouldn’t vote for him for County Commission.