Scalia sets pecedent for insurance mandate

NigelTufnel said:
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.
Click to expand...

what exactly is not accurate?

those males were already under the employ and pay of the government and were not required to purchase said items for six months and the act was temporary...comparing that to h/c is a total loser

now, explain what is not accurate
 
Yurt said:
what exactly is not accurate?

those males were already under the employ and pay of the government and were not required to purchase said items for six months and the act was temporary...comparing that to h/c is a total loser

now, explain what is not accurate
Click to expand...


First, those males were not "already under the employ and pay of the government." The statute conscripted them to service in the state militias, without pay, and required them to make certain purchases. If and only if the state militias were called into service of the federal government by order of the president would they be paid.

Second, whether the act was temporary is irrelevant. The Constitution does not have a clause allowing for temporary violations. Additionally, the act was only temporary in that it was repealed by a later act. I do not believe it was temporary according to its terms.
 
NigelTufnel said:
First, those males were not "already under the employ and pay of the government." The statute conscripted them to service in the state militias, without pay, and required them to make certain purchases. If and only if the state militias were called into service of the federal government by order of the president would they be paid.

Second, whether the act was temporary is irrelevant. The Constitution does not have a clause allowing for temporary violations. Additionally, the act was only temporary in that it was repealed by a later act. I do not believe it was temporary according to its terms.
Click to expand...

you should take your own advice and learn to read more carefully:

Sec. 10. And be it further enacted, That this act shall continue and be in force, for and during the term of two years, and from thence to the end of the next session of Congress thereafter, and no longer
Click to expand...
 
Yurt said:
of course they do, again, i gave you a list of distinct and important differences that show your attempt to analogize the two acts is fatally flawed...
Click to expand...


First, I'm not anologizing the two. I am merely attacking one particular species of argument against The Affordable Care Act that is bullshit, specifically, the argument that the federal government has never required anyone to buy anything.

Second, as you concede, the "temporary" distinction is one that does not matter one bit from a constitutional perspective. It is not an important difference for purposes of testing constitutionality.
 
NigelTufnel said:
First, I'm not anologizing the two. I am merely attacking one particular species of argument against The Affordable Care Act that is bullshit, specifically, the argument that the federal government has never required anyone to buy anything.

Second, as you concede, the "temporary" distinction is one that does not matter one bit from a constitutional perspective. It is not an important difference for purposes of testing constitutionality.
Click to expand...

nigel, are you saying that 'temporary' violations of the constitution are ok? :confused:
 
SmarterThanYou said:
nigel, are you saying that 'temporary' violations of the constitution are ok? :confused:
Click to expand...


No, not at all. Yurt apparently concedes that "temporary" constitutional violations are not OK. That being the case, the fact that the Militia Acts were "temporary" and the Affordable Care Act is not, is not a distinction that matters.
 
NigelTufnel said:
First, I'm not anologizing the two. I am merely attacking one particular species of argument against The Affordable Care Act that is bullshit, specifically, the argument that the federal government has never required anyone to buy anything.

Second, as you concede, the "temporary" distinction is one that does not matter one bit from a constitutional perspective. It is not an important difference for purposes of testing constitutionality.
Click to expand...

you're not analogizing the two acts, you're just comparing one act to the other to show the government can force you to buy something and using the prior act as precedent for this :palm:

in order for you 'example' to be valid, we must test the actual acts side by side. you're basically calling all homicides equal, because homicide has the definition of killing a person. the government forced people to arm themselves after they were conscripted into a militia, thus under the command of the US government, quite different than ordinary citizens who did not have to purchase/maintain arms. further, they did not have to purchase the arms for six months after being conscripted. thus, they were not ordinary citizens forced to purchase something, they were members of the militia under the control of the US military
 
NigelTufnel said:
No, not at all. Yurt apparently concedes that "temporary" constitutional violations are not OK. That being the case, the fact that the Militia Acts were "temporary" and the Affordable Care Act is not, is not a distinction that matters.
Click to expand...

? concedes ?

where did i ever say they were ok? link up or admit you're wrong about i said.
 
Yurt said:
you're not analogizing the two acts, you're just comparing one act to the other to show the government can force you to buy something and using the prior act as precedent for this :palm:
Click to expand...

I'm not comparing anything to anything else. I'm disposing of one particular argument against the Affordable Care Act. The argument that the government cannot force people to buy something is not a valid argument. At times, the government has indeed compelled individuals to purchase things.

Yurt said:
in order for you 'example' to be valid, we must test the actual acts side by side. you're basically calling all homicides equal, because homicide has the definition of killing a person. the government forced people to arm themselves after they were conscripted into a militia, thus under the command of the US government, quite different than ordinary citizens who did not have to purchase/maintain arms. further, they did not have to purchase the arms for six months after being conscripted. thus, they were not ordinary citizens forced to purchase something, they were members of the militia under the control of the US military
Click to expand...

Nonsense.

You pretend that all of your "differences" actually matter for constitutional purposes and I say they are shit. First, the conscription point is laughable. You're basically saying that the government cannot force you to buy something but it can compel your involuntary servitude to the state and force you to buy something. That makes about zero sense.

Second, the "difference" that individuals did not have purchase the required equipment for six months is equally stupid. You don't have to buy health insurance for five years which makes I suppose makes it ten times more constitutional.

And this assumes that you are correct on the facts, which you aren't.
 
NigelTufnel said:
I'm not comparing anything to anything else. I'm disposing of one particular argument against the Affordable Care Act. The argument that the government cannot force people to buy something is not a valid argument. At times, the government has indeed compelled individuals to purchase things.



Nonsense.

You pretend that all of your "differences" actually matter for constitutional purposes and I say they are shit. First, the conscription point is laughable. You're basically saying that the government cannot force you to buy something but it can compel your involuntary servitude to the state and force you to buy something. That makes about zero sense.

Second, the "difference" that individuals did not have purchase the required equipment for six months is equally stupid. You don't have to buy health insurance for five years which makes I suppose makes it ten times more constitutional.

And this assumes that you are correct on the facts, which you aren't.
Click to expand...

you are comparing it, stop denying that. you're trying to compare being under the command of the US military to ordinary citizens. your attempt to equate and compare the two utterly fails. you also get pay in the militia.

stop using the militia act to justify the h/c act forcing you to buy insurance. its embarrassign, faulty and really makes you look silly nigel.
 
Yurt said:
you are comparing it, stop denying that. you're trying to compare being under the command of the US military to ordinary citizens. your attempt to equate and compare the two utterly fails. you also get pay in the militia.

stop using the militia act to justify the h/c act forcing you to buy insurance. its embarrassign, faulty and really makes you look silly nigel.
Click to expand...


Let's revisit my earlier post:

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.
Click to expand...


That's all I'm saying, hoss. Relax.

And your analysis of the Militia Acts is not correct. First, the state militias were not under command of the U.S. military unless and until they were called into such service by the President and the state militias were not paid by the federal government unless and until they were called into such service.
 
how you think you are not comparing them is beyond me...you're using one to justify the other....this is a loser argument nigel, the constitution specifically addresses militias, the power to create them...

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;
Click to expand...

quite different from the h/c law...and tell me nigel...what was teh penalty if someone couldn't afford to buy their own arms/ammo? did congress ever discuss the issue of those too poor to purchase nigel? they are under the power of the POTUS who is in charge of the US military...they weren't regular military, but still under the authority of the POTUS and congress re training etc....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top