1792...The 1st Individual Mandate Signed Into Law (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion



Message

Owner59 -> 1792...The 1st Individual Mandate Signed Into Law (9/26/2010 10:14:32 AM)

The Militia Acts of 1792

http://www.thehealthcareblog.com/the_health_care_blog/2010/07/the-original-individual-mandate-circa-1792.html

"Regardless of one’s opinion on the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act’s constitutionality, most commentators-and no less an authority than the Congressional Budget Office)-agree (or concede, as the case may be) that Congress has never required Americans to purchase a good or service from a private entity as a condition of citizenship. But, importantly, they are wrong. The ongoing debate over the mandate’s constitutionality has uncovered an unlikely precedent to the PPACA’s individual mandate to possess health coverage. I recently wrote about this overlooked original individual mandate in an article, “The First Individual Mandate: What the Uniform Militia Act of 1792 Tells Us about Fifth Amendment Challenges to Healthcare Reform.”



TheHeretic -> RE: 1792...The 1st Individual Mandate Signed Into Law (9/26/2010 10:38:22 AM)

Congress is assigned to "raise and support armies," and "provide for organizing, and arming the militias."

Exactly what duty of Article 1, Section 8 is exercised by telling Americans they have to buy health insurance?

(Shhh. I know the answer they'll go to court with, but I want to see if he does)



Malkinius -> RE: 1792...The 1st Individual Mandate Signed Into Law (9/26/2010 9:44:43 PM)

Greetings Owner59.....

That was a well written article. I knew about the federal and various state militia acts and some of the state acts are still around or were until a few years ago.

On the point of there being a former act of congress requiring citizens to purchase something at their own expense I consider that point proven.

On the point that it may be used as a precedent, granted. It certainly seems to me to apply.

On the point that the health insurance mandate and the mandate for personal arms are the same sort of mandate, not proven.

--One of the points a commenter made was very telling in this case. The Militia Act required only a basic weapon, ammunition and pack. It was, except for the lead and powder for shot, a one time or once in a very long while purchase. There was, in fact, no requirement to purchase any of it, only to possess and maintain it.

--The militia act did not apply to everyone. It applied to a significant, but minority group of people. It ended at a certain age. The health insurance requirement applies to everyone and never ends.

--Not mentioned in the comments that I read was another point. The Militia Act had no limit on who you could purchase your required items from or that you could not make them yourself. The Health Insurance Act limits the providers of said insurance to a few companies which to my understanding is not all of the possible insurance companies you theoretically can buy from. (I am unsure of the last point but I believe this to be the case.)

So....precedent of mandate, yes. Precedent that allows the activity, I will have to go into the no column on this one. Or better yet, no but a very good try. I grant it as an argument worth trying.

Be well....

Malkinius



truckinslave -> RE: 1792...The 1st Individual Mandate Signed Into Law (9/26/2010 10:02:33 PM)

Constitutionality of mandate.... not tested.



MrRodgers -> RE: 1792...The 1st Individual Mandate Signed Into Law (9/26/2010 11:08:38 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: truckinslave

Constitutionality of mandate.... not tested.

If that is tested then soon as 'Obamacare' becomes unconstitutional...so does Medicare. Millions pay for something to provide services for others while ineligible themselves. Seems that's a taking and on equally shaky constitutional grounds if Obamacare is.

Then we can start down the list beginning with all of the arbitrary business exemptions to federal law.



truckinslave -> RE: 1792...The 1st Individual Mandate Signed Into Law (9/27/2010 4:55:21 AM)

quote:

Then we can start down the list beginning with all of the arbitrary business exemptions to federal law


I don't see how "a taking" is the same thing as an exemption.

If other programs are found unconstitutional, so much the better.



MrRodgers -> RE: 1792...The 1st Individual Mandate Signed Into Law (9/27/2010 7:17:31 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: truckinslave

quote:

Then we can start down the list beginning with all of the arbitrary business exemptions to federal law


I don't see how "a taking" is the same thing as an exemption.

If other programs are found unconstitutional, so much the better.

That's very easy for you to say but then be prepared to go bankrupt when you need all of that late-in-life health care if Medicare goes too.

BTW, arbitrary tax exemptions is what the 'Boston Tea Party' was all about and violates 'equal treatment under the law.'

For example...it is in fact very likely if brought to the courts any super majority required by again 'arbitrary' rules in the senate is unconstitutional in depriving the VP of the his only constitutional voting power...to break a tie. There are whole host of other laws on the books, predominantly business and tax laws that both favor particular industries and even individual businesses and individual contractors. (1099) All of which could be unconstitutional.

The military draft is unconstitutional in that it is involuntary servitude to the state. This cited act of 1792 if taken to court may well have settled that question but with slavery such a large part of southern sloth at the time...maybe not.

For example, in 'Needler vs Lane' 1863, Pa state supreme court, the northern military draft was ruled unconstitutional as just that, so it was struck down in Pa.



truckinslave -> RE: 1792...The 1st Individual Mandate Signed Into Law (9/27/2010 7:27:11 AM)

quote:

BTW, arbitrary tax exemptions is what the 'Boston Tea Party' was all about and violates 'equal treatment under the law.'


Two imaginative mistakes in one sentence. Very creative.

SCOTUS would not, probably, can not, interfere with whatever rules the Senate makes for itself. Taxation of defined groups and activities has been repeatedly upheld.

Is the draft unconstitutional???? Maybe; but it has a looooong commonlaw history.....



MrRodgers -> RE: 1792...The 1st Individual Mandate Signed Into Law (9/27/2010 7:48:46 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: truckinslave

quote:

BTW, arbitrary tax exemptions is what the 'Boston Tea Party' was all about and violates 'equal treatment under the law.'


Two imaginative mistakes in one sentence. Very creative.

SCOTUS would not, probably, can not, interfere with whatever rules the Senate makes for itself. Taxation of defined groups and activities has been repeatedly upheld.

Is the draft unconstitutional???? Maybe; but it has a looooong commonlaw history.....

Well you fail to point out those mistakes and while those 'special' tax laws have been around in masse' I am not aware of any dispositive case allowing any favorable treatment on constitutional grounds. The senate cannot make arbitrary rules in violation of the constitution say for example, white only, lawyer only, rich only...so this 60 votes to end cloture, whatever that is, to end a non-existent filibuster, I say...is unconstitutional. Furthermore, it could be ruled that ANY vote other than a simple majority except where specified in constitution...is in violation.

As for common law, is it irrelevant as with a constitution...law is codified and that's the purpose...same law for ALL people, where all people (and businesses) are to likewise to be codified as 'equal before the law.'



Page: [1]

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.046875