I assume you're referring to the 6th amendment (per your response to ghost). It's a great question, with a rather easy answer. The constitution was written primarily as the people's defence against a government. When you're charged with a crime, it's the government prosecuting you. People used to be prosecuted with no defence and no knowledge of the laws. In comes the 6th amendment to remedy that. Basically, the government put you in the position to need defense. They didn't put you in the position to need healthcare.

I mean, it's arguably the same situation as government healthcare, just with what feels to me like an arbitrary line drawn to justify it. If the main objection to government healthcare is that we don't have the right to other people's labor, then this [quote]Basically, the government put you in the position to need defense. They didn't put you in the position to need healthcare.[/quote] doesn't seem like a great justification to me, because then it's not the idea of a "right to others' labor" itself that you're taking issue with, just the necessary conditions to make that right deserved. I don't see how any of the objections some people have to having the right to someone else's labor would disappear just because the government was the cause of the problem in the first place. If the government's policies spun the nation into another great depression, would it then be justified to nationalize the food and/or healthcare industries on the basis that it was the government that caused the widespread malnourishment? I'm just not quite sure I can understand how someone could argue against having a right to someone else's labor and simultaneously support the last bit of the sixth amendment.

[quote]I think it'd be interesting to see the overlap in people who hold the constitution and bill of rights in high regard and people who think that you don't have the "right to someone else's labor."[/quote] It's the same people

So what's the general consensus on the sixth amendment among those people?