I was in a debate with another Kossack yesterday about rights, what constitutes denial of rights and unequal rights, etc.
So, I'm going to create a civil right (meaning, a right legally enshrined in our Constitution's amendments), put forth twos scenario below the squiggle, and then you guys have at it!
Let's keep the debate robust but polite. No need to lambast or insult anyone for having a different opinion.
There is an Constitutional Amendment guaranteeing necessary preventative and surgical healthcare for all US citizens. Though it's a federal program, it's administered through the States. A minimum expectation of services is set.
4 states go above and beyond that minimum, and choose to include elective cosmetic surgery (not face-fixing from a chimpanzee mauling; we're talking nose-jobs, eyebrow lifts) and gender-transition surgery in their universal offerings.
Is a citizen who resides in a state that is NOT one of the 4 listed above having their rights violated by not having access to the cosmetic and gender-transition surgeries? Assume you must be a citizen of one of those 4 states and have lived there for a year prior to becoming eligible for those additional services.
The SCOTUS decides that the 2nd Amendment covers mace, and that all US citizens have a right to mace of a minimum strength of 4 peppers (i made that strength measurement up). 16 states pass laws allowing their citizens to possess mace up to 8 peppers, while the rest of the states pass laws specifically limiting mace strength carried by civilians at the 4 pepper strength. Are the citizens of the 34 states limited at 4 peppers having their civil rights violated? Assume citizens of the 16 states cannot possess the 8-pepper strength mace in those states.
Have at it! Very interested to see the responses.