I don't have a right to eat, because that implies someone else has to provide food. I do have a right to earn my food and choose whatever I want to eat without government interference, though. Kinda like healthcare.
Which was my point. Now since access to these markets is not explicitly written anywhere (that I am aware of) as a right, what is the basis of this claim? Keep in mind I am not disagreeing, but this argument is more emotional than factual.
Does this mean that this view point is any more valid than an opposing one? We could split hairs discussing how the interstate commerce clause is interpreted, that interpretations deviation from the original meaning, but I am going to assume the modern interpretation is the one that applies.
This means that the gov indeed does have the right to regulate the food industry (which it has extensively for a century). Now where does the state's right end? It would appear that it doesn't, since no particular food is considered a protected right. Even if the constitution were interpreted to mean that the fed does not have the right to ban twinkies, the individual states could since twinkies are not a protected right.
This is why I have always claimed that people have rights not explicitly listed. It simply wasn't necessary 220ish years ago, since no one would have dreamed that this level of micromanaging was even possible, let alone probable.
This also means that, if my claim is correct, exactly which rights a person has, and how far they go, is a legitimate debate. Unfortunately it is generally an emotional one, so very little is ever accomplished.
