kallend 2,182 #1 April 10, 2012 The Militia Acts of 1792, passed by the Second Congress and signed into law by President Washington, mandated "every free able-bodied white male citizen ages 18 through 44 ... shall within six months thereafter, provide himself with a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt and...not less than twenty-four cartridges..." Apparently the Founding Fathers, who were still around, thought it Constitutional. So if it's OK for guns and ammo, why not for health insurance?... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
RonD1120 62 #2 April 10, 2012 QuoteThe Militia Acts of 1792, passed by the Second Congress and signed into law by President Washington, mandated "every free able-bodied white male citizen ages 18 through 44 ... shall within six months thereafter, provide himself with a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt and...not less than twenty-four cartridges..." Apparently the Founding Fathers, who were still around, thought it Constitutional. So if it's OK for guns and ammo, why not for health insurance? The former gives power to the people. The latter gives power to the government.Look for the shiny things of God revealed by the Holy Spirit. They only last for an instant but it is a Holy Instant. Let your soul absorb them. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NewGuy2005 53 #3 April 10, 2012 Quote So if it's OK for guns and ammo, why not for health insurance? It's not OK Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,182 #4 April 10, 2012 QuoteQuoteThe Militia Acts of 1792, passed by the Second Congress and signed into law by President Washington, mandated "every free able-bodied white male citizen ages 18 through 44 ... shall within six months thereafter, provide himself with a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt and...not less than twenty-four cartridges..." Apparently the Founding Fathers, who were still around, thought it Constitutional. So if it's OK for guns and ammo, why not for health insurance? The former gives power to the people. The latter gives power to the government. Silly argument. Unhealthy people aren't more powerful. Healthy people don't give power to the govt. Freeloaders don't give power to the people.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
RonD1120 62 #5 April 10, 2012 QuoteQuoteQuoteThe Militia Acts of 1792, passed by the Second Congress and signed into law by President Washington, mandated "every free able-bodied white male citizen ages 18 through 44 ... shall within six months thereafter, provide himself with a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt and...not less than twenty-four cartridges..." Apparently the Founding Fathers, who were still around, thought it Constitutional. So if it's OK for guns and ammo, why not for health insurance? The former gives power to the people. The latter gives power to the government. Silly argument. Unhealthy people aren't more powerful. Healthy people don't give power to the govt. Freeloaders don't give power to the people. Well, of course it's silly to you. You are a liberal with strong socialistic values. Geesh! I'm a natural born American with strong conservative southern values.Look for the shiny things of God revealed by the Holy Spirit. They only last for an instant but it is a Holy Instant. Let your soul absorb them. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #6 April 10, 2012 QuoteThe Militia Acts of 1792, passed by the Second Congress and signed into law by President Washington, mandated "every free able-bodied white male citizen ages 18 through 44 ... shall within six months thereafter, provide himself with a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt and...not less than twenty-four cartridges..." Apparently the Founding Fathers, who were still around, thought it Constitutional. So if it's OK for guns and ammo, why not for health insurance? QuoteThe Militia Act of 1792, requiring that able-bodied citizens arm themselves for militia training, is based on the Militia Clause of the Constitution; Obamacare’s individual mandate is based on nothing. http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/04/02/Clinton-Fibs-Obamacare"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #7 April 10, 2012 QuoteSo if it's OK for guns and ammo, why not for health insurance? As soon as Obama starts forcing unarmed citizens to buy guns, then I'll accept his forced health care insurance. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
davjohns 1 #8 April 10, 2012 QuoteThe Militia Acts of 1792, passed by the Second Congress and signed into law by President Washington, mandated "every free able-bodied white male citizen ages 18 through 44 ... shall within six months thereafter, provide himself with a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt and...not less than twenty-four cartridges..." Apparently the Founding Fathers, who were still around, thought it Constitutional. So if it's OK for guns and ammo, why not for health insurance? An interesting question. I'll give it some thought. The obvious things that spring to mind are limited/finite costs vs enduring repetitive costs; national interests vs individual interests; personal property vs footing the bill for benefits of others, etc. At first blush, I'm not entirely sure the mandate you cite would be constitutional either. It seems reasonable, but not necessarily legal.I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
marks2065 0 #9 April 10, 2012 QuoteThe Militia Acts of 1792, passed by the Second Congress and signed into law by President Washington, mandated "every free able-bodied white male citizen ages 18 through 44 ... shall within six months thereafter, provide himself with a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt and...not less than twenty-four cartridges..." Apparently the Founding Fathers, who were still around, thought it Constitutional. So if it's OK for guns and ammo, why not for health insurance? No it is not ok, but someone with your education would know that the Marshal scotus' first decision was in 1791, when the formation of the scotus was just being introduced. this read will let you better understand why some laws passed back then that would not hold up today.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judicial_review_in_the_United_States Since the landmark decision of Marbury vs Madison didn't happen until 1803, in which the Supreme Court ruled that the federal courts have the duty to review the constitutionality of acts of Congress and to declare them void when they are contrary to the Constitution, you can understand why some laws were not overturned previously. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,132 #10 April 10, 2012 >As soon as Obama starts forcing unarmed citizens to buy guns, >then I'll accept his forced health care insurance. You'd have to have an exception for employers who had moral objections to guns, of course . . . . Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,182 #11 April 10, 2012 QuoteQuoteThe Militia Acts of 1792, passed by the Second Congress and signed into law by President Washington, mandated "every free able-bodied white male citizen ages 18 through 44 ... shall within six months thereafter, provide himself with a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt and...not less than twenty-four cartridges..." Apparently the Founding Fathers, who were still around, thought it Constitutional. So if it's OK for guns and ammo, why not for health insurance? No it is not ok, but someone with your education would know that the Marshal scotus' first decision was in 1791, when the formation of the scotus was just being introduced. this read will let you better understand why some laws passed back then that would not hold up today.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judicial_review_in_the_United_States Since the landmark decision of Marbury vs Madison didn't happen until 1803, in which the Supreme Court ruled that the federal courts have the duty to review the constitutionality of acts of Congress and to declare them void when they are contrary to the Constitution, you can understand why some laws were not overturned previously. But the intent of the framers (a favorite of the righties like rushmc) was clear, since they were still around to object to this law, and didn't. George Washington, father of the nation, even signed the law.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #12 April 10, 2012 Gee, John. Maybe because the basis for the the law isn't the same. The ACA used the Commerce Clause to get the individual mandate instead of clauses 15 and 16 of Article 1, Section 8. Why not just tell me that something works using the ideal gas model, so we should be fine with a real gas model. Using different laws leads to different things that work and do not work. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,182 #13 April 10, 2012 QuoteQuoteThe Militia Acts of 1792, passed by the Second Congress and signed into law by President Washington, mandated "every free able-bodied white male citizen ages 18 through 44 ... shall within six months thereafter, provide himself with a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt and...not less than twenty-four cartridges..." Apparently the Founding Fathers, who were still around, thought it Constitutional. So if it's OK for guns and ammo, why not for health insurance? QuoteThe Militia Act of 1792, requiring that able-bodied citizens arm themselves for militia training, is based on the Militia Clause of the Constitution; Obamacare’s individual mandate is based on nothing. http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/04/02/Clinton-Fibs-Obamacare Even lamer than Ron's point. The general welfare is also mentioned in the Constitution, so Breitbart's argument about the militia being mentioned is faulty.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,182 #14 April 10, 2012 QuoteGee, John. Maybe because the basis for the the law isn't the same. The ACA used the Commerce Clause to get the individual mandate instead of clauses 15 and 16 of Article 1, Section 8. Why not just tell me that something works using the ideal gas model, so we should be fine with a real gas model. Using different laws leads to different things that work and do not work. So you agree that a federal mandate to purchase or otherwise obtain something is NOT unprecedented. Cool.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
marks2065 0 #15 April 10, 2012 QuoteQuoteQuoteThe Militia Acts of 1792, passed by the Second Congress and signed into law by President Washington, mandated "every free able-bodied white male citizen ages 18 through 44 ... shall within six months thereafter, provide himself with a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt and...not less than twenty-four cartridges..." Apparently the Founding Fathers, who were still around, thought it Constitutional. So if it's OK for guns and ammo, why not for health insurance? No it is not ok, but someone with your education would know that the Marshal scotus' first decision was in 1791, when the formation of the scotus was just being introduced. this read will let you better understand why some laws passed back then that would not hold up today.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judicial_review_in_the_United_States Since the landmark decision of Marbury vs Madison didn't happen until 1803, in which the Supreme Court ruled that the federal courts have the duty to review the constitutionality of acts of Congress and to declare them void when they are contrary to the Constitution, you can understand why some laws were not overturned previously. But the intent of the framers (a favorite of the righties like rushmc) was clear, since they were still around to object to this law, and didn't. George Washington, father of the nation, even signed the law. I think the question is did it come before the scotus to be reviewed? in order to rule they would have needed it to be brought before them. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #16 April 10, 2012 QuoteSo you agree that a federal mandate to purchase or otherwise obtain something is NOT unprecedented. Cool. Yes, I agree. But that's not the whole story, John, and you know it. Fundamentally, what you are doing is providing the exception that proves the rule. Using the Commerce Clause to force the American public to purchase private goods and services is unprecedented. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #17 April 10, 2012 Quote I think the question is did it come before the scotus to be reviewed? in order to rule they would have needed it to be brought before them I find a couple of reasonable justifications in the Constitution challenged with the ACA. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
marks2065 0 #18 April 10, 2012 QuoteQuote I think the question is did it come before the scotus to be reviewed? in order to rule they would have needed it to be brought before them I find a couple of reasonable justifications in the Constitution challenged with the ACA. Sorry, I was refering to the malitia act from 1792 that Kallend had posted. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #19 April 10, 2012 I think I was unclear. I see a couple of reasonable justifications in the Constitution for an act of Congress requiring gun acquisition. There are two specific clauses regarding militia and arms. Note also On the other hand, I don't see it in the Constitution for the ACA and its use of the Commerce Clause. Kallend is playing politics and not playing law. They are different games with different rules. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #20 April 10, 2012 Quote>As soon as Obama starts forcing unarmed citizens to buy guns, >then I'll accept his forced health care insurance. You'd have to have an exception for employers who had moral objections to guns, of course . . . . Only if the health insurance mandate also allows for exceptions by those who morally object to government mandates... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
marks2065 0 #21 April 10, 2012 QuoteQuote>As soon as Obama starts forcing unarmed citizens to buy guns, >then I'll accept his forced health care insurance. You'd have to have an exception for employers who had moral objections to guns, of course . . . . Only if the health insurance mandate also allows for exceptions by those who morally object to government mandates... ouch, that hits the point. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #22 April 10, 2012 QuoteQuoteQuoteThe Militia Acts of 1792, passed by the Second Congress and signed into law by President Washington, mandated "every free able-bodied white male citizen ages 18 through 44 ... shall within six months thereafter, provide himself with a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt and...not less than twenty-four cartridges..." Apparently the Founding Fathers, who were still around, thought it Constitutional. So if it's OK for guns and ammo, why not for health insurance? QuoteThe Militia Act of 1792, requiring that able-bodied citizens arm themselves for militia training, is based on the Militia Clause of the Constitution; Obamacare’s individual mandate is based on nothing. http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/04/02/Clinton-Fibs-Obamacare Even lamer than Ron's point. The general welfare is also mentioned in the Constitution, so Breitbart's argument about the militia being mentioned is faulty. Lawyers disagree with you here"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #23 April 10, 2012 QuoteQuoteSo if it's OK for guns and ammo, why not for health insurance? As soon as Obama starts forcing unarmed citizens to buy guns, then I'll accept his forced health care insurance. funny - I'd fight against Obama if he forces citizens to buy against their will as well (I recognize you wrote that in a wry tone to note it's super unlikely) ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,182 #24 April 10, 2012 Quote Lawyers disagree with you here Badge of Honor.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
headoverheels 334 #25 April 10, 2012 So since then we've gone to a socialist, government run military and police force. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
