Have I found proof that Obama's individual mandate is constitutional?

[obamusupporter]

After spending numerous months examining American laws in search of a precedent where the federal government forced people to buy items against their will (individual mandate), and I believe I may have found something.

The Founding Fathers themselves enforced an individual mandate with the Militia Acts of 1792, which required that all able-bodied citizens must purchase "a musket, bayonet and belt, two spare flints, a cartridge box with 24 bullets, and a knapsack." As you can see, there is a precedent for having the federal government force people to buy things against their will, and it was by the Founding Fathers themselves.

Please bear in mind that there was no war going on in 1792, so the Militia Acts of 1792 was not a draft, it was an individual mandate, just like Obama's Obamacare mandate. Do you think this proves Obama's individual mandate to be constitutional?

 

[hjmick]

Not even close.

Apples and groundhogs.

 

[PredFan]

I know that Obama Supporters are generally clueless but here's a free clue for you:

The Supreme Court already decided on this.

You're welcome.

 

[obamusupporter]

I know that Obama Supporters are generally clueless but here's a free clue for you:

The Supreme Court already decided on this.

You're welcome.

I know they did, but they only did that because it was the right thing to do, not because it was constitutional. We still have to convince people that it really is constitutional, and not just because those unelected bureaucrats said so.

 

[jillian]

After spending numerous months examining American laws in search of a precedent where the federal government forced people to buy items against their will (individual mandate), and I believe I may have found something.

The Founding Fathers themselves enforced an individual mandate with the Militia Acts of 1792, which required that all able-bodied citizens must purchase "a musket, bayonet and belt, two spare flints, a cartridge box with 24 bullets, and a knapsack." As you can see, there is a precedent for having the federal government force people to buy things against their will, and it was by the Founding Fathers themselves.

Please bear in mind that there was no war going on in 1792, so the Militia Acts of 1792 was not a draft, it was an individual mandate, just like Obama's Obamacare mandate. Do you think this proves Obama's individual mandate to be constitutional?

interesting history.

it's also constitutional because the Court said so.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Romney will require that everyone own and read a Bible, it's Constitutional

 

[jillian]

Not even close.

Apples and groundhogs.

not really. the argument was that government couldn't force people to buy something.

i think the founders did, no?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

After spending numerous months examining American laws in search of a precedent where the federal government forced people to buy items against their will (individual mandate), and I believe I may have found something.

The Founding Fathers themselves enforced an individual mandate with the Militia Acts of 1792, which required that all able-bodied citizens must purchase "a musket, bayonet and belt, two spare flints, a cartridge box with 24 bullets, and a knapsack." As you can see, there is a precedent for having the federal government force people to buy things against their will, and it was by the Founding Fathers themselves.

Please bear in mind that there was no war going on in 1792, so the Militia Acts of 1792 was not a draft, it was an individual mandate, just like Obama's Obamacare mandate. Do you think this proves Obama's individual mandate to be constitutional?

I didn't know that. That is interesting. So NY Gun law must be unconstitutional

 

[Leweman]

Its constitutional because its a tax ... also you didn't find anything because this comparison has been around for as long as the healthcare debate in 2009.

 

[KissMy]

It's a health-care TAX!!! So of course it is Constitutional.

 

[Mad Scientist]

The Supreme Court also said a Corporation is a person, doesn't mean it is.

OP needs to go back and read the pre-amble. "Provide for the Common Defense" is much different than "Promote the General Welfare".

Provide = To Make Available; Furnish; To Supply or Equip.
Promote = To Encourage.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

After spending numerous months examining American laws in search of a precedent where the federal government forced people to buy items against their will (individual mandate), and I believe I may have found something.

The Founding Fathers themselves enforced an individual mandate with the Militia Acts of 1792, which required that all able-bodied citizens must purchase "a musket, bayonet and belt, two spare flints, a cartridge box with 24 bullets, and a knapsack." As you can see, there is a precedent for having the federal government force people to buy things against their will, and it was by the Founding Fathers themselves.

Please bear in mind that there was no war going on in 1792, so the Militia Acts of 1792 was not a draft, it was an individual mandate, just like Obama's Obamacare mandate. Do you think this proves Obama's individual mandate to be constitutional?

First of all this argument has been around since 2010. It's been argued in the media.
ex: Did the Militia Act of 1792 set a precedent for Obama's health insurance mandate? - Slate Magazine

The above post is what you get when pseudo intellects have a keyboard and an internet connection.

The legal arguments and rulings surrounding Obamacare do not address the term 'mandate'

"The Militia Act (actually two bills passed within a week of one another in May 1792), on the other hand, depends on the Militia Clause..."
---

The PPACA/Obamacare mandates a 'shared responsibility payment' which it was argued fell under the commerce clause or the Constitution granting Congress the power to lay and collect taxes. Chief Justice ruled the commerce clause argument was unConstitutional, but that the collection by the IRS of the individual mandate's 'shared responsibility payment' in the PPACA was constitutional under the Congress's power to lay and collect taxes

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

It's a health-care TAX!!! So of course it is Constitutional.

wrong: the mandated 'shared responsibility payment' is a penalty the act lays on those who choose not to pay it. The penalty is to be collected as a tax.

 

[peach174]

The Militia were State Government employees, to be called upon for insurrections as well as war. Paid by the Government when called upon.
All able bodied citizens was not all citizens, like the New Health Care bill calls for.
Forcing all citizens onto a health insurance who are not State or Government employees is not the same thing as all able bodied Men who were Government employees.
The Federal Government could order mandates to State Employees.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

The Militia were State Government employees, to be called upon for insurrections as well as war. Paid by the Government when called upon.
All able bodied citizens was not all citizens, like the New Health Care bill calls for.

Forcing all citizens onto a health insurance who are not State or Government employees is not the same thing as all able bodied Men who were Government employees.
The Federal Government could order mandates to State Employees.

The Militia Act of 1792

Militia (United States) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The PPACA/Obamacare doesn't force everyone onto a health insurance plan. That is where the mandated payment comes in. Choose to not buy health insurance (or go on the government subsidy) and get hit with a payment to be collected by the IRS.


The IRS is prohibited from certain enforcement actions and it is not a crime to not buy health insurance.

 

[Leweman]

It's a health-care TAX!!! So of course it is Constitutional.

wrong: the mandated 'shared responsibility payment' is a penalty the act lays on those who choose not to pay it. The penalty is to be collected as a tax.

Right: You just said it yourself.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Not even close.

Apples and groundhogs.

not really. the argument was that government couldn't force people to buy something.

i think the founders did, no?

Choice: buy health insurance or pay a shared responsibility payment, a penalty to be collected by the IRS

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

It's a health-care TAX!!! So of course it is Constitutional.

wrong: the mandated 'shared responsibility payment' is a penalty the act lays on those who choose not to pay it. The penalty is to be collected as a tax.

Right: You just said it yourself.

wrong.

There are other payments the IRS collects that are NOT taxes. Look it up. should be easy for a simpleton like you.

---



First of all this argument has been around since 2010. It's been argued in the media.
ex: Did the Militia Act of 1792 set a precedent for Obama's health insurance mandate? - Slate Magazine

The legal arguments and rulings surrounding Obamacare do not address the term 'mandate'

"The Militia Act (actually two bills passed within a week of one another in May 1792), on the other hand, depends on the Militia Clause..."
---

The PPACA/Obamacare mandates a 'shared responsibility payment' which it was argued fell under the commerce clause or the Constitution granting Congress the power to lay and collect taxes. Chief Justice ruled the commerce clause argument was unConstitutional, but that the collection by the IRS of the individual mandate's 'shared responsibility payment' in the PPACA was constitutional under the Congress's power to lay and collect taxes
---

The PPACA/Obamacare mandates a 'shared responsibility payment' which it was argued fell under the commerce clause or the Constitution granting Congress the power to lay and collect taxes. Chief Justice ruled the commerce clause argument was unConstitutional, but that the collection by the IRS of the individual mandate's 'shared

--


The Militia Act of 1792

Militia (United States) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The PPACA/Obamacare doesn't force everyone onto a health insurance plan. That is where the mandated payment comes in. Choose to not buy health insurance (or go on the government subsidy) and get hit with a payment to be collected by the IRS.


The IRS is prohibited from certain enforcement actions and it is not a crime to not buy health insurance.

 

[Leweman]

wrong: the mandated 'shared responsibility payment' is a penalty the act lays on those who choose not to pay it. The penalty is to be collected as a tax.

Right: You just said it yourself.

wrong.

There are other payments the IRS collects that are NOT taxes. Look it up. should be easy for a simpleton like you.

nope. Just taxes.

 

[Leweman]

Not even close.

Apples and groundhogs.

not really. the argument was that government couldn't force people to buy something.

i think the founders did, no?

Choice: buy health insurance or pay a shared responsibility payment, a penalty to be collected by the IRS

sounds like a tax to me.