So Congress has no authority to require individuals to make a purchase? Really?

[Bolo Boffin]

Behold the Militia Act of 1792:

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled... That every citizen, so enrolled and notified, shall, within six months thereafter, provide himself with a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack, a pouch, with a box therein, to contain not less than twenty four cartridges, suited to the bore of his musket or firelock, each cartridge to contain a proper quantity of powder and ball; or with a good rifle, knapsack, shot-pouch, and powder-horn, twenty balls suited to the bore of his rifle, and a quarter of a pound of powder...

Signed into law by George Everlovin' Washington.

You think those Teabagging gun-nut motherfuckers can understand THAT?

ETA: I'm going to link to my via source, a really good article with a crappy ending that I don't buy. It takes all the "unconstitutional" arguments and shows why they're crap.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2010-03-23/how-to-kill-health-care-in-court/?cid=hp:mainpromo3

A sample:

Mandating individuals to purchase health insurance, opponents claim, isn’t a regulation of economic activity. According to Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli, “We contend that if a person decides not to buy health insurance, that person—by definition—is not engaging in commerce and, therefore, is not subject to a federal mandate.”

Yet people who fail to buy health insurance are engaging in economic activity. They are making an economic decision to self-insure. If they fall ill, they usually find that they can’t afford medical care and visit an emergency room. Or they go without care, allow their condition to worsen, and then get taken to an emergency room. In either case, the American people foot the bill. The national economic consequences of individuals deciding to go without insurance are enormous.

Even if self-insuring could be construed as non-economic activity, the individual mandate is still within Congress’s commerce power. The High Court has held on numerous occasions that Congress can regulate non-economic activity as part of a larger, comprehensive effort to regulate some aspect of our national economy. Just a few years ago, the Supreme Court held that Congress, as part of its effort to stamp out interstate commerce in illegal drugs, could prohibit a person from growing marijuana in his own home for his own use. The court has also said that Congress, as part of regulation of wheat prices, can limit the amount of wheat a farmer grows on his own land for his personal use.

With health care, controlling precedent seems to clearly allow Congress, as part of its comprehensive effort to regulate the interstate health-care market, to require individuals to have insurance coverage. Even if the decision to go without insurance is not economic activity, Congress can reach it because health care profoundly affects interstate commerce.

Much good stuff at the link. I don't think even the Roberts court would try to touch this.

[bluestateguy]

1. Did the Congress set up an exchange for people to make their purchases?

and provide subsidies for those who could not afford it?

;)

[Bolo Boffin]

2. We were not a Christian Nation then, sir. n/t

[upi402]

3. Cool, so can we pay the Dr in musket balls?

Seriously, good find. And is what they'll do once they gain power again... force us to buy guns through an NRA gun supplier pool. We will regret this.

[Bolo Boffin]

4. Let them get the votes. We did. :D

But seriously, the requirement to purchase a gun was related to the specific power of Congress to regulate the militias. Sure, gun-nuts could require every citizen of America to buy a gun if there was some valid connection to the powers and responsibilities that Congress has. Let them get the votes and the rationale together, though, because the reasoning behind the Militia Act has long flown the coop.

[upi402]

6. True but it felt very close under BushCo to me

Sometimes I think the media could tell them that the earth was flat and most Americans would consider it possible.

[Luminous Animal]

8. The requirement was for those who VOLUNTEERED for the militia.

[Bolo Boffin]

10. You are INCORRECT.

From the text of the act:

...each and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective States, resident therein, who is or shall be of age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years (except as is herein after excepted) shall severally and respectively be enrolled in the militia...

This was NOT a volunteer situation.

[Luminous Animal]

12. I see that you are right.

I also see that if a citizen complied with their conscription...
"and every citizen so enrolled, and providing himself with the arms, ammunition and accoutrements, required as aforesaid, shall hold the same exempted from all suits, distresses, executions or sales, for debt or for the payment of taxes.

I'll trade being exempt from all suits in regards to the payment of taxes in exchange for buying insurance.

Anyway, a quick google search reveals that the volunteers were happy to comply with the restrictions, the conscripted met twice a year and got drunk.

[hex29a]

21. I seriously doubt that: Repubs don't want us to have guns and our own Dem leaders don't either.

...

[TorchTheWitch]

5. citizens volunteered to be in a militia

If you wanted to be in a militia you had to supply some of your own basic supplies much of which most already had. If you didn't want to be in a militia you didn't have to volunteer to be in one. Many who wanted to be in one couldn't due to age, gender, disability, etc. If you were a young and healthy male and had no other obligations that would have kept you from joining a militia but couldn't join because you couldn't obtain some of these basic supplies it was often the case that the community would supply them for you since by volunteering to be in the militia you would be helping to protect that community.

This has fuck all to do with being required to purchase hugely expensive health insurance from for-profit companies that aren't required to give you care for the premium you'll now be forced to pay. It's absurd in the extreme that you stooped to this old militia act as anything close to a relavent comparison. And it's repulsive that you're stooping to trying to convince people that the government being able to force all US citizens to purchase a product from a for-profit company or pay a fine as if that's some kind of good thing.

[Bolo Boffin]

7. You are INCORRECT.

From the 1792 text:

...each and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective States, resident therein, who is or shall be of age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years (except as is herein after excepted) shall severally and respectively be enrolled in the militia...

This was not a volunteer militia. You may apologize to me and everyone here in your next post.

[Leopolds Ghost]

11. Were they given a list of suppliers to choose from? The argument is asinine

Nowhere in the list of goods is it said where they were required to source them.

Most of the goods cited were HOMEMADE or purchased from neighbors. HOMESPUN WAS A RALLYING CRY OF THE REVOLUTION.

Next you'll be claiming the Alien and Sedition Acts were legitimate because Adams signed it.

And last I checked, the statists (Hamilton, et al) who set up our current central-bank, central military system OPPOSED the universal militia because it was set up to ELIMINATE THE NEED FOR A STANDING ARMY, which Jefferson and many other people opposed.

Does the military today require its soldiers to purchase X, Y and Z? Oh, I forgot, THE MILITARY IS THE MOST SOCIALIST INSTITUTION IN AMERICA.

And you're claiming a law mandating the purchase of firearms of all Americans for non-militia purposes (i.e. purposes NOT OUTLINED in the constitution) would be constitutional today.

[Bolo Boffin]

13. They had to possess a weapon and its support.

However they could get it, they had to. And "purchased from neighbors" is still purchased.

People can certainly self-insure if they have the necessary funds. And no, the military doesn't require soldiers to buy their own weapons, because that's entirely unworkable - but not because it's unconstitutional to do so.

And if a law mandating the purchase of firearms for non-militia purposes could be accorded with other powers outlined in the Constitution, then yes, that law would be Constitutional. It's not a law I would make or seek to justify, though, but the gun-nuts are free to try. It's a big old democracy.

[TorchTheWitch]

15. so it's wasn't ALL citizens

and therefore no comparison. It was also the armed forces more comparable to a draft and therefore also no comparison. Case closed.

[Bolo Boffin]

16. You keep dreaming. n/t

[Crabby Appleton]

25. just the "free able-bodied white male citizen"

that's what it says

[Bolo Boffin]

29. Yes, the only citizens that mattered in 1792. n/t

[JuniperLea]

70. Oh please... only white men were "human" back then...

Let alone citizens with rights, etc.

[Statistical]

71. It wasn't all white men, it didn't mandate purchase, there were no fines for noncompliance.

[JuniperLea]

72. It SPECIFIED white men... and it was a clear MANDATE...

Please go back and read... it's there.

[Statistical]

79. Once again no.

It specified ABLE BODIED which is not all of the population. Not even all of the white male population.
It indicated that each citizen needed to HAVE that item. No PURCHASE was mandated.
There were no fines for non-compliance.

All homes had firearms in 1792. There was no economic impact of the population. Nothing mandates people purchase a good/service from a private party.

[JuniperLea]

83. How would they acquire those things without purchasing them?

n/t

[Statistical]

86. Households already had those items.

Most items were made at home or locally. There were no Walmarts in 1792.
A weapon which was good for hunting but not compliant for militia service could be traded for one that was.
The law also carried no penalty for non-compliance and there was no burden of IRS validating mandate and impossing penalties.

Lastly it was durable goods. Any purchased only needed to be made once. Unlike insurance which requires continual capital. Even the fine in HCR mandate is a continual fine (equal to 2.5% of income for as long as you don't have HCR).

[JuniperLea]

89. I seriously doubt there were home forges...

For rifle barrels... shot, yes, barrels, no.

[Statistical]

90. How long does a rifle barrel last.

Did the act make the existing rifles in the home somehow obsolete?

The scope is nothing like mandating everyone purchase insurance from private for profit companies or face substantial penalties (2% of income on continual basis).

[JuniperLea]

91. Well, everyone who already has insurance is cool...

Just like everyone who already had a gun is cool...

An for what it's worth... those old barrels rusted and corroded very quickly... wooden stocks broke, etc.

[Statistical]

93. Everyone who has insurance needs to keep buying it continually forever.

I have a pistol from 1904 which still works perfectly. Firearms last an amazingly long time.

[JuniperLea]

97. They do now...

Iron manufacturing is far superior now, as is the ability to properly care for them.

Regardless, the goverment was telling people they needed to own something... the purchase is secondary. If you are wealthy and already self-insured, there's no mandate. I'm sure there will be a clause pertaining to adults for religious beliefs.

[Bolo Boffin]

95. He's got you in a false equivalence loop.

It doesn't matter that there's not a one-to-one ratio to guns and insurance policies. The main thing is that a privately-owned good was mandated by Congress in pursuit of one of its Constitutional powers. Congress did it then, Congress can do it now, there's no constitutional problem.

[JuniperLea]

96. That's how I see it...

I had a problem explaining it well and absolutely got caught in a trap... thanks.

[Leopolds Ghost]

9. What an asinine argument. Implies the 100s-year old hospital safety net for indigent is a BAD THING.

Implies that simply EXISTING is participating in the insurance pool instituted set up to benefit PRIVATE PARTIES, that these economic arrangements exist and you can't opt out of them.

that simply painting your house pink or putting flamingoes on your lawn is hurting the other homeowners in your HOA, so they can sue you.

They'll use the same argument to privatize Social Security since you'll claim it's not unconstitutional to force Americans to invest in the Stock Market because WE ALL INDIRECTLY ARE INVESTED IN THE STOCK MARKET.

Or you'll claim that it's not unconstitutional to force Americans to drive a car because WE ALL BENEFIT FROM TRUCKING, SO YOU CAN'T CLAIM YOU'RE HELPING THE ENVIRONMENT by failing to help finance the roadways.

[Bolo Boffin]

14. It does no such thing.

The safety net for indigents currently threatening to drive medical costs to an unsustainable level, taking down several otherwise solvent government safety net programs with it, is currently doing a good job of disgracing itself.

[eridani]

18. Nope. It is insurance companies who are doing that

They are a parasitic industry that adds no value.

[Bolo Boffin]

19. What do unsustainable costs mean? That the whole system is going to crash.

The individual mandate was a lifeline. There's no point in letting the whole system crash while transition takes place.

[eridani]

99. Bullshit. The real lifeline is doing what sane countries do.

Take care of EVERYONE with global budgets for health care. Everyone gets actual CARE for half of what we spend.

[pnorman]

17. K & R, for later study in detail.

n/t

[Statistical]

20. Federal Govt was delegated power to organize, arm, and discipline Militias by the Constitution.

In the militia act of 1792 the govt was simply codifying powers it had ALREADY been granted by the Constitution.

Article 1; section 8 - Constitution of the United States.

Congress has have the power

...

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

[Bolo Boffin]

22. Federal Government also has the broad power of regulating interstate commerce.

From the Daily Beast article:

The power to regulate interstate commerce is one of the most important powers of Congress and is the basis for most federal laws, including Medicare, Social Security, drug laws, civil-rights laws, and others. Since the 1930s, the Supreme Court has said that Congress’s commerce power is very broad and can be used to justify regulation of nearly any activity that substantially impacts interstate commerce.

Health insurance, of course, substantially impacts interstate commerce.

[Statistical]

23. That is a question for the courts to decide.

Never before has CC been used to regulate a non-action or mandate purchase of a product from a third party. While the SCOTUS may indeed interpret the CC as delegating the power to mandate purchases and regulate "lack of commerce" it is valid to challenge it. That is the PURPOSE of the Supreme Court. This use of power by Congress goes beyond any previous precedent related to the Commerce Clause and thus challenge is not only appropriate it should be EXPECTED in a functional Democracy.

Lastly it is a horrible precedent. If govt can mandate purchase of insurance they can mandate the purchase of ANY product or service. When you combine that reality with fact that corporate interest dominate federal politics, the power of lobbying, and now the ability for corporations to spend unlimited money in elections you move us further down the road into corporate serf-hood.

If lack of action can be ruled as economic activity that can be regulated the govt can control virtually all aspects of your life even areas where you choose not to participate. The precedent is troubling for current administration but it will be lasting going forward forever until overturned. Bush won't be the worst President we ever have. Eventually someone far worse will come along and they (by this precedent) will be able to mandate purchase of any good and regulate any inaction.

[Bolo Boffin]

24. And as the quote I've reproduced said, the courts have been very broad in interpreting this phrase.

I see you've managed to produce a goalpost-moving machine, but to no avail. The Commerce Clause is in the Constitution, is it not? The Militia Act required people to own a weapon in support of the government's power to regulate the militia. Requiring people to own insurance (or provide proof of the ability to self-insure) is in support of the the government's power to regulate interstate commerce.

Sure, go ahead, challenge this in court, waste your money and time. At the end of the day, it will stand. The individual mandate is a vital part of reforming the entire system. Everybody has to be in. Anyone that doesn't purchase insurance is subject to a tax. Your choice.

Your money and time would be far better spent in getting a public option into the exchanges.

[Statistical]

26. Constitutional Challenge is part of the process.

No previous precedent gives the Commerce Clause this much power. The power to mandate private purchases, the power to regulate "non-action".

I even said SCOTUS may expand upon previous precedent and say the law is Constitutional but this is what is SUPPOSE to happen. Government at work. Checks and Balances and all that quaint stuff.

[Bolo Boffin]

30. And part of THIS process is that these constitutional challenges will fail.

For the reasons laid out in the article I linked to in the OP.

[Statistical]

32. Well that is up to the 9 people wearing black robes.

I don't presume to speak for the Supreme Court and many who do end up looking foolish.

Many people though the Constitutional challenge in Heller v. DC would lose and it didn't.

The challenge may indeed lose but it has nothing to do with militia act. The commerce clause is broad but not unlimited. Supreme Court has 3 times in last 20 years ruled action taken under Commerce Clause was Unconstitutional.

If I were a betting man I would put the money on the feds 70/30. To say it absolutely 100% no matter what will lose is foolish and shows a lack of understanding on a complex issue.

[Bolo Boffin]

37. And the 9 people wearing black robes may jump up and start doing the Locomotion.

But that's not very likely, is it?

[Statistical]

39. It wasn't likely that Heller v. DC would be sucessful and that happened.

I never claimed govt lacks the ability I simply stated in remains unsettled law.
Also the militia act "link" is just plain stupid.

[Bolo Boffin]

42. No, the Militia Act link is the exact point.

The Militia Act shows that Congress is well within its constitutional rights to require citizens to possess a private good. In the case of the Militia Act, it was a firearm. In the case of the health care legislation, it is health insurance.

[Statistical]

46. Not even close. Please do some reading before you embarrass yourself more.

If HCR mandate is Constitutional it will be because of power delegated by Commerce Clause (Article I, Section 8, Clause 3).

The Milita act was Constitutional because of power delegated by Federal govt mandate to equip militias (Article I, Section 8, Clause 15).

The intent of HCR mandate is to regulate commerce between the states.
The intent of the Milita act was to enforce delegated power to equip the militia.

Just because both involved "buying stuff" the idea that they support each other is preschool logic.
"Ocean is blue and sky is blue so the sky is made up of oceans". :rofl:

[Bolo Boffin]

48. Yep, I can lapse into "debunking 9/11 truth advocates" mode with you. n/t

[court jester]

34. One of the most shocking things the "Health Insurance Reform" has done

is reveal the depth of ignorance regarding the Feds and the States.

Many don't even know what to appreciate, let alone why.

Did they stop teaching US history or something?

"Eventually someone far worse will come along and they (by this precedent) will be able to mandate purchase of any good and regulate any inaction."

Yes. It's unbelievable and scary that there's so much screaming for the team while ignoring the fact that people are being played. Hard. Oh well, the Ideas that built this country won't be killed, maybe just smothered until they arise somewhere else.



Consolation: Knowing
the IRS will hassle some
"HIR" supporters

[Bolo Boffin]

36. Any broadly unpopular mandate can always be repealed.

Good luck getting those votes.

[Statistical]

40. That isn't the point. Nazism WAS POPULAR in Germany.

Sometimes the majority can do horrible and evil things.
The founders intent was not for 51% of country to have absolute power.
A system of protections based only on the power of the majority is no protection at all.

For example:
Republican majority could pass an abortion tax. Abortion is still legal however anyone who has one must pay a $2000 tax.

Now you may say "that will never pass" but that is a very flimsy protection. Will it pass today? No. How about tomorrow, or in a year, or in a decade, or after a plague cuts population in half? A stronger lasting protection is the checks and balances that prevent that from passing even with a 100% majority.

The federal govt was never intended to have unlimited power via the commerce clause. If that was the intent there would have been no need for delegated vs. reserved powers.

We dismantle the set of checks and balances painstakingly crafted by the Founders at our own peril.

[Bolo Boffin]

73. And now you've Godwined yourself. n/t

[Statistical]

82. Nothing changes the fact that it did happen and founding father although

not aware of the future rise of Nazi party were genuinely concerned about fascism and tyranny by the majority. Their own words are easily available in Federalist Papers and other original documents. They designed a system so that one would never need to rely on so called "protection of the majority". Germany and countless other examples show that is no protection at all.

[Bolo Boffin]

85. Hmmm....

[treestar]

66. Not that simple

The Civil Rights laws were possible under the Commerce Clause. They were challenged, and that is how they were upheld.

From the case law, the Commerce Clause has a long reach. It already goes to the ends of the earth, as the law professors say.

[Statistical]

69. Long reach but not unlimited.

There have been 4 decisions in last 20 years which ruled against Federal govt and the reach of CC.

Still I think States will likely lose. The CC has been stretched and contorted so far from its original meaning it is hard to turn back down.

[dembotoz]

27. the gov can force you to do any number of things--ie the draft????

getting sent to Nam would have been a much greater imposition than paying a heath care premium.
imho.

[Bolo Boffin]

31. Exactly. n/t

[Statistical]

33. The federal govt can do what it has delegated powers to do.

Drafting is completely different than mandating purchase of private goods.

Ever single action taken by the federal govt must be backed by specific delegated powers. Any powers not delegated are reserved by the States.

[Bolo Boffin]

35. And as the Militia Act shows, the government can mandate ownership of private goods.

Anyone who can self-insure doesn't have to purchase a policy. Anyone who could build a rifle didn't have to buy one.

The specific delegated power in this case is the power to regulate interstate commerce.

Are we having a discussion here or are you just going to keep repeating the same points as if they haven't been covered? I just want to know if I can lapse into my "debunking 9/11 truth advocates" mode yet.

[Statistical]

38. The milita act shows no such thing.

The milita Act had NOTHING ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with the Commerce Clause.

I gave you the exact line of the Constitution that the federal govt was delegated power.

Try reading original documents before you start lecturing.

Your link between Militia Act and commerce is about as dubious as 9/11 truther's "evidence". :rofl:

[Bolo Boffin]

41. I'm sorry, are you saying that a rifle and ammo and powder are not private goods?

In the case of the Militia act, the specific delegated power is the ability to regulate militia, and the private good enjoined upon the citizens to possess was an appropriate firearm.

In the case of the health care legislation, the specific delegated power is the ability to regulate interstate commerce, and the private good enjoined upon the citizens to possess is an appropriate insurance policy.

Your assertion that I've linked the Militia Act to the Commerce clause is a straw man.

The question before us is: does the Constitution permit Congress to mandate the purchase of a private good. The answer is Yes as the path to the Militia Act demonstrates, and to which the health care legislation conforms.

[Statistical]

50. No the path that demostrates it depends on the goods and the intent.

If HCR is constitutional is because mandating insurance is required to regulate commerce and that is a power delegated by the Commerce Clause.

The militia act was Constitutional because Congress has the explicit power to equip militias a power granted by Clause 15 of Article 1, Section 8.

The Militia Act has absolutely nothing to do with HCR Constitutionality. No lawyer defending the federal govt in a suit will even mention it because likely they don't want to get utterly humiliated before the Supreme Court for making such a stupid claim.


The State vs. Federal fight will completely boil down to:
"Is the act of NOT buying insurance subject to regulation by Commerce Clause?"

If it is then Federal Govt wins and mandate is Constitutional.
If it isn't then Federal Govt loses and the mandate is Unconstitutional.

[Bolo Boffin]

55. I don't understand why you're being so obtuse on this.

Can Congress enjoin the possession of a private good on a citizen in pursuit of its constitutional powers? Yes, it can. The Militia Act demonstrates that. The Militia Act provides a precedent for the action we are talking about.

Now is a good time for you to look at the author of the Daily Beast piece I've linked to.

[Statistical]

59. Militia acts provides no such precedent.

Only an idiot would think so.

The precedent is clearly via Commerce Clause and even then courts may rule this is overstepping the bounds. They have done so in the past. The power of Commerce Clause is large (too large IMHO) but it isn't unlimited. It is a question for the courts to see if HCR mandates fall within that broad but unlimited power.

The militia clause in Constitution didn't grant the federal govt unlimited power in mandating purchases and certainly not purchased UNRELATED TO SERVICE IN A MILITIA.

I will donate $25 to DU in your name if Milita Act or Milita powers on Constitution are metioned in briefs or oral arguments by either side in any of the 14 lawsuits. It will never happen. Why? Because militia act doesn't have anything to do with Health Care.

Mandating the militia be properly equipped doesn't MAGICALLY grant the govt the ability to mandate unrelated purchases.

[Bolo Boffin]

60. Mandating possession of health insurance is NOT unrelated to regulating interstate commerce.

It's like you haven't even read the Daily Beast article.

[Statistical]

62. The daily Beast is not the deciding factor the SCOTUS is.

I never made the claim that is IS NOT RELATED. Rather that is may not be related because previous precedent don't go that far. Until precedent is either extended or knocked back by Supreme Court it is a question for them to decide.

Still none of that has anything to do with your foolish claim that because federal govt has delegated power to equip militias it somehow gains power to mandate on unrelated items.

It really is silly. :rofl:

[Bolo Boffin]

64. " never made the claim that is IS NOT RELATED. Rather that is may not be related"

Goalpost moving. You most certainly did make that claim, several times now.

[Statistical]

67. Can you not read? Here let me put all the quotes in a single spot for you (to make it easy)

While the SCOTUS may indeed interpret the CC as delegating the power to mandate purchases and regulate "lack of commerce" it is valid to challenge it.

Post 22

I even said SCOTUS may expand upon previous precedent and say the law is Constitutional but this is what is SUPPOSE to happen. Government at work. Checks and Balances and all that quaint stuff.

Post 24

I don't presume to speak for the Supreme Court and many who do end up looking foolish.

Many people though the Constitutional challenge in Heller v. DC would lose and it didn't.

The challenge may indeed lose but it has nothing to do with militia act. The commerce clause is broad but not unlimited. Supreme Court has 3 times in last 20 years ruled action taken under Commerce Clause was Unconstitutional.

Post 30

I never claimed govt lacks the ability I simply stated in remains unsettled law.
Also the militia act "link" is just plain stupid.

Post 37

If HCR mandate is Constitutional it will be because of power delegated by Commerce Clause (Article I, Section 8, Clause 3).

Post 42

Been pretty consistent all along. In another post/thread I even said given current SCOTUS it is likely that the States will lose.

However for the last time none of this has anything to do with Militia Act. The Militia Act was lawful because Congress has the express power to equip militias via the Militia act.

[Bolo Boffin]

74. Post #59. n/t

[Statistical]

80. Still having trouble reading?

The precedent is clearly via Commerce Clause and even then courts may rule this is overstepping the bounds. They have done so in the past. The power of Commerce Clause is large (too large IMHO) but it isn't unlimited. It is a question for the courts to see if HCR mandates fall within that broad but unlimited power.

----------------
1) May be Constitutional
2) Commerce Clause is Powerful but not unlimited (has been limited in the past)
3) Question for Courts to decide

Yup looks pretty consistent. Once again nothing to do with militia act which was Constitutional due to the Militia Powers.

[Hosnon]

53. Specific delegated powers supplemented by the Necessary and Proper clause.

The Commerce Clause + the Necessary and Proper Clause creates massive power for the federal government.

[Bolo Boffin]

87. Thank you! n/t

[laughingliberal]

28. I don't expect any constitutional challenges to this to be successful. nt

[Abq_Sarah]

43. You may be right

And unfortunately, that's a shame.

Maybe congress will mandate that people have to purchase goods and services from my company. It would decrease unemployment in my community and bring in a ton of tax revenue.

[cherokeeprogressive]

44. Um, a quick word search of the Militia Act of 1792 reveals no instances of the word "purchase". n/t

[Bolo Boffin]

45. Did you expect them to get their rifles from the rifle tree? n/t

[Statistical]

51. Make one. Inherit one. Borrow one. Request one from the town armory.

Can I build my own Health Insurance Policy?
Can I borrow one?
Can I Inherit one? Pass the same Health Insurance Policy down to my children?

Is a rifle a durable good meaning it will last from year to year?
Can I buy health insurance once and be set for life?

What was the penalty for non-compliance under Militia Act?
Did Congress authorize a tax/fine for not purchasing a rifle?

[Bolo Boffin]

54. Provide yourself with one. Exactly.

You certainly can self-insure. Demonstrate you have the financial ability to pay for your health care needs and you're done.

I do believe there was a fine or two in the Militia Act.

[Statistical]

57. Except I am fined 2.5% of my income for doing so.

Not just once but 2.5% of my income for the rest of my life. Yet somehow you think that is comparable to a household having a firearm (which lasts a lifetime) and in 1792 there were no households without firearms.

There was no Police Force and attack by criminals and Indians was a real prospect.

[Bolo Boffin]

58. You also had to have the other equipment - appropriate ammo, knapsack, etc.

The legal framework IS comparable.

[Statistical]

61. No not comparable.

The equipment is limited to service in a militia. Congress specifically has power to equip militias by any means it deems fit. In this case by the militiamen themselves (via a mandate).

It is not even close to comparable to saying that power magically extends from an enumerated right to equip militias to unlimited and sweeping power to a mandate on any good in any place at any time for any reason.


If HCR mandate is Constitutional it is via the Commerce Clause. It really is that simple even a child could see that but you are now emotionally invested so you will argue something that clearly isn't even logical.

We will see when it goes to court and nobody from either side (states or federal govt) will make a dubious claim like said militia clause in Constitution is precedent for unlimited power to mandate.

[Bolo Boffin]

63. "unlimited and sweeping power to a mandate on any good in any place at any time for any reason"

Another straw man.

[Statistical]

68. If they can mandate health care insurance they can mandate any product or service.

No strawman at all.

The power to mandate would be derived from Commerce Clause which even before mandates was rather sweeping with many Constitutional Scholars saying its overwhelming power strains seperation of powers between Federal & State.

This would expand that power further and nothing would limit it only to mandates on Healthcare. It would be another breakdown in the system of checks and balances which has kept the Republic together and strong for over 200 years.

[Bolo Boffin]

75. Maybe we can get a mandate for you to buy a logic book. n/t

[cherokeeprogressive]

65. Musket ammo and knapsacks were homemade.

Keep trying.

[NickB79]

77. Musket ammo was not homemade

You could cast your own lead balls and make your own patches, but very few colonists made their own black powder due to the complexity and dangers involved in milling it. And without powder, that musket becomes a club.

[Bolo Boffin]

78. In every instance? No one bought ammunition or knapsacks whatsoever?

Face it: This was an individual mandate for a large percentage of American citizens to possess a specific good. It was easily Constitutional.

[Statistical]

81. It was Constitutional because Congress had power to equip militia.

[Bolo Boffin]

84. Congress has the power to regulate interstate commerce. n/t

[Statistical]

88. Of course it does that isn't what made Militia Act constitutional though.

Congress has the authority to equip militias via Militia Powers. That is what made militia act constitutional. The Militia Act of 1792 did far more than mandate certain items be kept in the home.

Lastly Congress ability to regulate interstate commerce is not unlimited.

[Bolo Boffin]

94. Straw man - I have never claimed the Commerce Clause made the Militia Act constitutional.

Please to address the arguments I actually made instead of the ones you'd prefer to attack.

[cherokeeprogressive]

52. Is there such thing as a rifle tree?

Regardless of your snark, there was no requirement for a purchase of any kind.

Could a blacksmith have created muskets, firelocks, or rifles for his own family? For his friends? In exchange for some fresh game, or as thanks for his wife's service as a midwife?

The militia act stated no requirement for how those pieces of hardware were acquired. Argue that.

[Bolo Boffin]

56. You're perfectly free to self-insure. Demonstrate your ability to do so and you're done.

And if you can't and choose not to purchase an insurance policy, then you pay the tax. Simple.

[eleny]

92. "In exchange for" - Barter is still a purchase

[Ozymanithrax]

47. I wonder if I can find a good used musket on ebay?

[Bolo Boffin]

49. Super clean! n/t

[pitohui]

76. these are the same nuts that think the IRS is unconstitutional

they should all be fined for wasting the court's time and let's move on

[NewJeffCT]

98. What did George Washington know about original intent?

I mean, compared to Antonin Scalia & Clarence Thomas, I mean?