It actually is not a new right. This right has long standing in the law. You are also forgetting that the constitution does not enumerate all of the rights, just the ones felt to be most important at the time.

you mean the civil unions none of the states were willing to give?

Sure, I can get down with that, as long as you are willing to give up all the government benefits of being married.

However general welfare is also one of the FEW constitutional responsibilities as well.

States could not get their shit together on defense, but the federal government stepped in and fixed the problem, was that wrong?

So you are pointing to specific cases to prove a general case? or did you not see the part that said "in general"

I think you are missing my point there bub. I am for the ACA, however if you want to not be a part of it, and have a irrational hatred of it, sign a waiver, and never get any assistance from it again, you are not allowed to sign up, nothing.

I want to see people who need help get it, even if they are hating it, as long as they are reasonable.

Please state why the ACA has no business being federal law?

Also yes, I am blaming them, I believe in putting blame where blame is due. If it was not for them we could have single payer.

Let me clarify for you then. What is specifically written in a small paragraph is not what you can look at in forming intent, it is the entire bill as a whole and the documented intentions of those writing it.

So it does not mean the administration can do whatever it wants, it is still bound by the law and the laws intent, as interpreted by the SCOTUS. It is checks and balances.

So in other words I was correct, in general, an illegal alien cannot get free healthcare, it is only in the limits of the state of CA.... In addition the bill you are talking about is mostly targeted to minors, who you cannot really blame for their parents breaking the law.

Both the intent and the bill are documented, the thought process is known...

Also you are stating the SCOTUS, the ultimate power in determining the law, is unreliable? And the fact that centuries of jurisprudence is based on this is not legal?

Since the employer mandate has not kicked in yet I am pretty sure that is not the ACAs fault.

I also do not believe that yur coverage went up that much.

Also an illegal alien cannot get healhcare for free in general, you are making shit up.

Here is the thing, I am fine with you not having healthcare as long as you are willing to not have a right to doctor care without paying for it up front if you dont have health care. Heart attack and no insurance, oh well stay home and die if you cannot pay for it up front.

Why should the rest of us pay for you to sit there smoking and eating all day into an early grave because you did not want to pay for health insurance, but still expect to see a doctor in an emergency.

also the amount changed is not unreasonable.

Because there was not much of an alternative. How to you do this without doing how the ACA setup or going single payer? Single payer was not going to happen, so conservatives forced this method on them.

In correct. In other words. The law was clearly drafted with a given intent that the plaintifs want the court to ignore, however intent of the law is an important part of the SCOTUS's interpretation of all laws.

What is written is not what is meant by intent, what is meant by intent is what the law was meant to accomplish. In this case if you remove all context from those few lines you can make it look like the intent was not to provide subsidies to these states (if you ignore that the word state has dual meaning in legislation), however when you look at the full bill, or heavens forbid, talk to the drafters of the law, you can see that the intent was to provide the credits either way.