Scalia sets pecedent for insurance mandate

[Cancel 2018. 3]

Actually, that's not quite accurate. In the early years the Militia Acts of 1792 required able bodied white male citizens between the ages of 18 and 45 to purchase at their own expense:

h/c is very different from the militias. there is no executive or legislative power to force someone to purchase h/c insurance, unlike the early use of war powers which are for the national defense.

the only power that congress has to force us to buy insurance is the "i said so power" and "i will use the executive branch to enforce this power"

oh, such a power doesn't exist....good for you nigel, you're learning

 

[Bonestorm]

If you read the act in its entirety you'll note that they conscripted them into the militia FIRST prior to mandating that the members of the militia purchase those items, NOT ordinary citizens.

So forced conscription into service of the state makes it kosher from a constitutional perspective for the government to mandate that people buy stuff? Interesting.

 

[KingCondanomation]

can you imagine the outrage now, if it were mandated for people to buy an automatic weapon and ammo?

In Kennesaw Georgia everyone is mandated to buy a gun, not something I approve of but it was interesting to see the effect on crime which decreased dramtically, in the early 1980's even, before the large crime drop we saw elsewhere in the 1990's when we got tough on crime and welfare reform.
http://www.tysknews.com/Depts/2nd_Amend/crime_rate_plummets.htm

You'd have to be one dumbass criminal to choose to rob a town where everyone is armed.

 

[Cancel 2018. 3]

So forced conscription into service of the state makes it kosher from a constitutional perspective for the government to mandate that people buy stuff? Interesting.

nice try at a comparison, but a complete and utter failure

its like comparing homicide with justifiable homicide

 

[KingCondanomation]

So forced conscription into service of the state makes it kosher from a constitutional perspective for the government to mandate that people buy stuff? Interesting.

I don't see why not, I imagine that as the militia is largely the forerunner to today's standing army, the federal government today possibly proscribes that it's army members buy certain things.

Besides which they are backed by a mandate that government provide defense and only promote welfare.

 

[Bonestorm]

h/c is very different from the militias. there is no executive or legislative power to force someone to purchase h/c insurance, unlike the early use of war powers which are for the national defense.

the only power that congress has to force us to buy insurance is the "i said so power" and "i will use the executive branch to enforce this power"

oh, such a power doesn't exist....good for you nigel, you're learning

First we must acknowledge that early on in the history of this country people were forced by the federal government to purchase and maintain certain goods. Once we acknowledge that it is indeed constitutional in some circumstances for the government to mandate that citizens buy certain things, the question becomes which things can the government force you to purchase, not whether the government can force you to purchase anything.

 

[Bonestorm]

I don't see why not, I imagine that as the militia is largely the forerunner to today's standing army, the federal government today possibly proscribes that it's army members buy certain things.

Besides which they are backed by a mandate that government provide defense and only promote welfare.

How is requiring individuals to make certain expenditures an instance of the government "providing" something? It seems to be quite the reverse, the government requiring individuals to provide something. No?

And on the first point, the gist of your argument seems to be that it would be constitutional for the government to conscript every citizen into service and to then require that they purchase health insurance, but unconstitutional for the government to do just one of those two things. I don't buy it.

 

[Bonestorm]

nice try at a comparison, but a complete and utter failure

its like comparing homicide with justifiable homicide

I'm not really comparing anything. I'm merely taking issue with the statement that "there is no historical precedent for the federal government forcing its citizens to purchase a good or service." There is indeed historical precedent for it.

 

[Cancel 2018. 3]

First we must acknowledge that early on in the history of this country people were forced by the federal government to purchase and maintain certain goods. Once we acknowledge that it is indeed constitutional in some circumstances for the government to mandate that citizens buy certain things, the question becomes which things can the government force you to purchase, not whether the government can force you to purchase anything.

correct me if i am wrong, but didn't conscription come first and then the second part of the act called for them to maintain weapons/ammo? that they also recieved pay and allowances...and that they were not required to puchase said items until six months after being enrolled in the militia...and the act was temporary

iow, they were already under the command of the US military, quite different than requiring you or i to purchase insurance.

 

[KingCondanomation]

And on the first point, the gist of your argument seems to be that it would be constitutional for the government to conscript every citizen into service and to then require that they purchase health insurance, but unconstitutional for the government to do just one of those two things. I don't buy it.

The Constitution often refers to the militia in seperate terms to ordinary citizens, look at the 2nd amendment's language for instance with calling them a "well-regulated militia".

Bottom line, Anthony Kennedy is not going to buy into the notion that a nation forcing it's militia to purchase things is a precedent for forcing it's regular citizens to do so. He has enough wisdom to know that if they set the only requirement as a precedent for if you can or cannot do/buy something is what the federal government orders it's militia (and later army) to do in the past then you open up the door to an enormous amount of totalitarianism based on the control they have over those who defend right now.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

I'm not really comparing anything. I'm merely taking issue with the statement that "there is no historical precedent for the federal government forcing its citizens to purchase a good or service." There is indeed historical precedent for it.

actually, if i remember history correctly, was that it required militia members to show up suitably armed or it would provide arms for them?

 

[Cancel 2018. 3]

actually, if i remember history correctly, was that it required militia members to show up suitably armed or it would provide arms for them?

i am not sure about that....another interesting note, is that when enrolled in the militia, they were exempt from taxes, lawsuits etc...

http://www.constitution.org/mil/mil_act_1792.htm

nigel needs to give this argument up and admit the two aren't even remotely related...

 

[SmarterthanYou]

i am not sure about that....another interesting note, is that when enrolled in the militia, they were exempt from taxes, lawsuits etc...

http://www.constitution.org/mil/mil_act_1792.htm

nigel needs to give this argument up and admit the two aren't even remotely related...

wait, what? exempt from taxes and lawsuits? where do I sign up?

 

[Bonestorm]

i am not sure about that....another interesting note, is that when enrolled in the militia, they were exempt from taxes, lawsuits etc...

http://www.constitution.org/mil/mil_act_1792.htm

nigel needs to give this argument up and admit the two aren't even remotely related...

You really need to learn to read more carefully. Militia members were not exempt from taxes, lawsuit, etc. . . Instead, the equipment that individuals were required to purchase could not be sold off to pay for the individual's debts, taxes, etc. . .

And I'm not arguing that requiring people to buy guns and related equipment is the same as requiring people to buy health insurance. I'm merely taking the position that the federal government can sometimes require people to buy stuff. What stuff and pursuant to what power is open to debate.

In short, the requirement that people buy health insurance may or may not be unconstitutional, but the argument that the federal government cannot compel anyone to buy anything ever is not a winner.

 

[Cancel 2018. 3]

wait, what? exempt from taxes and lawsuits? where do I sign up?

lol...the act was temporary, two years or something liek that

 

[Bonestorm]

wait, what? exempt from taxes and lawsuits? where do I sign up?

Exactly. Yurt is misreading the law. The law basically says that you cannot be forced to sell your guns, etc. to pay your debts, not that you are exempt from lawsuits and the like.

 

[Cancel 2018. 3]

You really need to learn to read more carefully. Militia members were not exempt from taxes, lawsuit, etc. . . Instead, the equipment that individuals were required to purchase could not be sold off to pay for the individual's debts, taxes, etc. . .

And I'm not arguing that requiring people to buy guns and related equipment is the same as requiring people to buy health insurance. I'm merely taking the position that the federal government can sometimes require people to buy stuff. What stuff and pursuant to what power is open to debate.

In short, the requirement that people buy health insurance may or may not be unconstitutional, but the argument that the federal government cannot compel anyone to buy anything ever is not a winner.

yeah, i read taht too quickly, so sue me...your attempt at analogy still fails though:

conscription come first and then the second part of the act called for them to maintain weapons/ammo? that they also recieved pay and allowances...and that they were not required to puchase said items until six months after being enrolled in the militia...and the act was temporary

iow, they were already under the command of the US military, quite different than requiring you or i to purchase insurance.

 

[Canceled1]

You mean service. Insurance is a service not a commodity. Coffe is a commodity.

Coffe is not a commodity. I am not quite sure what coffe is to begin with.

 

[Bonestorm]

yeah, i read taht too quickly, so sue me...your attempt at analogy still fails though:

conscription come first and then the second part of the act called for them to maintain weapons/ammo? that they also recieved pay and allowances...and that they were not required to puchase said items until six months after being enrolled in the militia...and the act was temporary

iow, they were already under the command of the US military, quite different than requiring you or i to purchase insurance.

I don't think your description is accurate, but it doesn't really matter. My point still holds true regardless: the argument that the federal government cannot compel anyone to buy anything under any circumstance is a loser.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

I don't think your description is accurate, but it doesn't really matter. My point still holds true regardless: the argument that the federal government cannot compel anyone to buy anything under any circumstance is a loser.

are you also arguing that basic healthcare is a fundamental right?