Bill would require all SD citizens to buy a gun

[drsmith1072]

Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U.S.

We come, then, to inquire whether any right given or secured by the Constitution is invaded by the statute as interpreted by the state court. The defendant insists that his liberty is invaded when the state subjects him to fine or imprisonment for neglecting or refusing to submit to vaccination; that a compulsory vaccination law is unreasonable, arbitrary, and oppressive, and, therefore, hostile to the inherent right of every freeman to care for his own body and health in such way as to him seems best; and that the execution of such a law against one who objects to vaccination, no matter for what reason, is nothing short of an assault upon his person. But the liberty secured by the Constitution of the United States to every person within its jurisdiction does not import an absolute right in each person to be, at all times and in all circumstances, wholly freed from restraint. There are manifold restraints to which every person is necessarily subject for the common good. On any other basis organized society could not exist with safety to its members. Society based on the rule that each one is a law unto himself would soon be confronted with disorder and anarchy. Real liberty for all could not exist under the operation of a principle which recognizes the right of each individual person to use his own, whether in respect of his person or his property, regardless of the injury that may be done to others. This court has more than once recognized it as a fundamental principle that 'persons and property are subjected to all kinds of restraints and burdens in order to secure the general comfort, health, and prosperity of the state; of the perfect right of the legislature to do which no question ever was, or upon acknowledged general principles ever can be, made, so far as natural persons are concerned.' Hannibal & St. J. R. Co. v. Husen, 95 U. S. 465, 471, 24 L. ed. 527, 530; Missouri, K. & T. R. Co. v. Haber, 169 U. S. 613, 628, 629, 42 L. ed. 878-883, 18 Sup. Ct. Rep. 488; Thorpe v. Rutland & B. R. Co. 27 Vt. 148, 62 Am. Dec. 625. In Crowley v. Christensen, 137 U. S. 86, 89, 34 L. ed. 620, 621, 11 Sup. Ct. Rep. 13, we said: 'The possession and enjoyment of all rights are subject to such reasonable conditions as may be deemed by the governing authority of the country essential to the safety, health, peace, good order, and morals of the community. Even liberty itself, the greatest of all rights, is not unrestricted license to act according to one's own will. It is only freedom from restraint under conditions essential to the equal enjoyment of the same right by others. It is, then, liberty regulated by law.

What you fail to understand is deciding an action does not violate The US Constitution is not the same as saying that the action is limited only to states.

Your argument to that effect is a non sequitur.

You are either not paying attention, or you have no ability to comprehend what you aread, you're simply trolling. My money is on all three.

To support the idea that the federal government has the power to require vaccinations, you presented a court decision that says a state requirement to that effect does not violate any of the rights protected by the US constitution. The citation of this case does not support your premise because:
1- A state having the power to do this in no way means the federal government has that power, as state powers are define by state constitutions, while federal powers are defined by the US constitution
2- That an action taken by s state does not violate the US constitution does not at all necessarily mean that if the federal governmen ttakes that same action, it will also not violate the US Constitution, as the federal government has different restriction that tne states in this regard - specifcally, the federal governmt can violate the 10th amendment, and states cannot.

Thus, your argument fails and your premise remains unsupported.

The fact that you need to stoop to your arrogant condescension just shows that you believe you can't argue solely on the facts. CON$ like to act like they are the only people smart enough to read. They are smarter than everyone else who doesn't agree with them. They know better than everyone else.
BULLSHIT!
You can't even comprehend words that have been highlighted, enlarged and underlined!!!!

The SCOTUS was not deciding this case based on state constitutional law. It was decided on US Constitutional law!!!!!
In the ruling SCOTUS clearly said that the power to act for the common good belongs to the "controlling authority of the COUNTRY" not the STATE ONLY!!!!!

I have quoted the SCOTUS decision, you quote NOTHING, you just pontificate based on your being a CON$ervative know-it-all.

Exactly. He claims that you are wrong but fails to show how. Then he claims that anything counter to his opinions is irrelevant but can't explain how. In the end all he provides are baseless opinions as he avoids arguments that he can't address or counter.

 

[M14 Shooter]

The air force is not an army. It;s the air force.

You must not have understood what I said.
Try reading it again.

 

[drsmith1072]

Background checks are a form of prior restraint in that you are prevented, in advance, from exercising your right on the basis that you may be comitting a crime, rather than made answerable after you commit an illegal act.
Prior restraint is an infringement.

Care to explain how prior restraint which legally has to do with freedom of speech, the 1st amendment and how the government can't block the media from printing or broadcasting a story has anything to do with firearms adn background checks? Do you have any legal basis for claiming prior restraint?

You don't think for yourself all that much, eh?

I said that it was a form of prior restraint.
That is, it applies the concept created in regard to a particular fundamnetal right protected by the constitution to another fundamental right protected by the constitution.

You -do- understand the concept of prior restraint, yes?
If so, then show how I am wrong in arguing that background checks are form of it.

How does asking you to explain and give SPECIFICS supporting your OPINION, even as you continue to fail to do so, imply that I don't think for myself?? Oh wait this is just you acting childish and calling people names because you have nothing meaningful to offer. LOL

Your entire OPINION based argument is based on your MISinterpretation as you try desperately to apply a standard specifically designed to apply to freedom of speech to "arms" and you actually believe that is a valid argument??

Furthermore, YOU made the argument and have as of yet failed to prove anything, other than how desperate you are, so the burden of proof is on YOU. However, nice cowardly attempt to flip it onto me as you ask me to prove you wrong. LOL

Oh and where is your legal basis for claiming that prior restraint applies to "arms"? I already asked this once and you failed to provide ANYTHING. So do you have anything meaningful to offer or not??

 

[drsmith1072]

And if they would have had selective fire weapons back then they would have required every citizens to have one.

Ergo, the law in the OP is constitutional

as is the HRC's individual mandate


unless we accept that the Militia Act in unconstitutional and the people who wrote, signed, and ratified COTUS didn't even want to live under it- which raises the question of why the hell we should be expected to.

False dichotomy.
The MA1792 is related to a requirement placed on a specific set of people as a condition of service mandated by the state. The government clearly thas the auhtority to regulate those in that service, including requiring that the people in question equp themselves.

This obviously differs from The Obama's HCI mandate in that the mandate covers everyone and is not pursuant to anything other than simply being a citizen - never mind that there is no clear authrority granted to the federal government to create the requirement in the first place.

You claim the HC bill covers everyone who is a citizen so please cite the portion of the bill that attains to the mandate and show how there are NO exemptions.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

Bill would require all S.D. citizens to buy a gun
Five South Dakota lawmakers have introduced legislation that would require any adult 21 or older to buy a firearm “sufficient to provide for their ordinary self-defense.”

Bill would require all S.D. citizens to buy a gun | The Argus Leader | argusleader.com



Good for the goose, good for the gander.

Thats a pretty cool idea.

I bet if they did it S.D. would have the lowest crime and murder by gun rates in the country.

 

[Bern80]

South Dakota Lawmakers Propose Mandating Gun Ownership -- to Make Point About Health Law - FoxNews.com

That would of course be constitutional as well, right libs?

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

South Dakota Lawmakers Propose Mandating Gun Ownership -- to Make Point About Health Law - FoxNews.com

That would of course be constitutional as well, right libs?

This is constitutional if a state requires it

It is unconstitutional if the fed requires it.

The Constitution does not give the federal government the authority to do this therefore it becomes the domain of the state. 10th ammendment.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

Same goes for health care.

 

[drsmith1072]

The fact that you need to stoop to your arrogant condescension just shows that you believe you can't argue solely on the facts. CON$ like to act like they are the only people smart enough to read. They are smarter than everyone else who doesn't agree with them. They know better than everyone else.
BULLSHIT!

Again, says the petulant child.

You can't even comprehend words that have been highlighted, enlarged and underlined!!!!

Nothhing here negates what I said or the argument I laid out - your conclusion does not follow from the evidence you have presented, nor is your premise supported by the arguments you laid, for the reasons I stated.

It doesn't matter what font you use to highlight those or any other words - this will always be true.

Again you engage in name calling and ommission showing that you have nothing meaningful to offer. LOL Your point has not been proven by you and yet Ed and I have provided quotes from the actual decision that counter your baseless OPINION that it only applies to the state. You offer NOTHING in the face of the actual wording of the decision and still claim that you are correct. How sad is that. LOL

Funny how you omit the wording of the decision that counters your spin AGAIN. LOL

 

[Mr Natural]

This has got to be one of the stupidest analogies yet.

 

[boedicca]

Mr. C doesn't grok the definition of analogy.

Just sayin'.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

This has got to be one of the stupidest analogies yet.

Why is it stupid?

 

[boedicca]

A better question is "why is it an analogy"?

 

[Mr Natural]

This has got to be one of the stupidest analogies yet.

Why is it stupid?

Has not owning a gun ever caused a personal bankruptcy?

 

[Two Thumbs]

South Dakota Lawmakers Propose Mandating Gun Ownership -- to Make Point About Health Law - FoxNews.com

That would of course be constitutional as well, right libs?

kooky

No the Fed can't make me by jack squat.

My state can.

If my state passed something like this, I'd be pissed. I don't want a gun of any kind in my home.

I'd seriously have to consider moving.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

This has got to be one of the stupidest analogies yet.

Why is it stupid?

Has not owning a gun ever caused a personal bankruptcy?

Lets try again. The constitution does not grant the federal government the authority to force citizens to purchase any product from health insurance to guns. This power is solely vested in the states according to the 10th ammendment.

So one more try why is it stupid?

EDIT: My state is a great example of a state that legally and constitutionally has mandated its citizens buy health insurance. This SD bill is another excellent example of a state mandating something that it feels the people of the state need/want. Neither are unconstitutional unless it was the federal govt mandating it.

 

[Two Thumbs]

This has got to be one of the stupidest analogies yet.

Why is it stupid?

Has not owning a gun ever caused a personal bankruptcy?

Has having health care ever kept your house from being robbed?

 

[Mr Natural]

Why is it stupid?

Has not owning a gun ever caused a personal bankruptcy?

Has having health care ever kept your house from being robbed?

How is owning a gun going to prevent my house from being robbed?

 

[drsmith1072]

Yawn is right I counterd that spin in a later post using a quote from content of the decision that you continue to ignore even as you make claims about the decision.

Oh and BTW thank for proving my point that you are a cowardly hack who has to edit or omit parts of posts he doesn't wish to address in oprder to pretend that your poionts are valid.

:roll:
When you can address what I post with something resembling a substantive response, please let me know.

From the text of the decision.

But the liberty secured by the Constitution of the United States to every person within its jurisdiction does not import an absolute right in each person to be, at all times and in all circumstances, wholly freed from restraint. There are manifold restraints to which every person is necessarily subject for the common good.

Funny thing is that I and others have been asking you to present something of substance for pages and you have continued to fail to do so.

The only thing that you have offered is to claim that others are wrong even as you fail to show HOW they are wrong then pretend that no one has addressed your questions when they have been fully addressed even as you ignore questions from others.

So in your own words so hopefully even you will be able to grasp it.

"When you can address what I post with something resembling a substantive response, please let me know."

 

[Two Thumbs]

Has not owning a gun ever caused a personal bankruptcy?

Has having health care ever kept your house from being robbed?

How is owning a gun going to prevent my house from being robbed?

My stoopud question was to make a point about yours.

you don't have to go bankrupt to pay your bills, EVERY hospital will take payments.

 

[drsmith1072]

This is silly.
The Air Force, originally part of the army,

was created under the power to raise armies​

.
It was the seperated from the army under the power to organize and regulate the military.
And, in any event, there's no reason it cannot be re-absorbed iinto the army.

So where in the constitution does it specfically meantion "Air Force" after all we are talking about the specific wording of the document are we not?? Like I said you CHOOSE to take a broad interpretation when it suits you and you provided a perfect example.

Um.. I addressed this, with the clear language of the constitution. See underlined.

No you didn't address this. You AVOIDED answering the question that was asked becuase you have nothing meaningful to offer. Fact is that you presented an OPINON that as of this point is UNSUBSTANTIATED. You really need to learn the difference between YOUR opinon and the truth because they are not the same. You saying it doesn't make it so.

So I ask again,

Where in the constitution does it specfically meantion "Air Force" after all we are talking about the specific wording of the document are we not?? Like I said you CHOOSE to take a broad interpretation when it suits you and you provided a perfect example.