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

[Procrustes Stretched]

Didn't SCOTUS call it a tax?

So, it's a tax, no matter WHAT Dainty says it is.

Chief Justice Roberts did not label it a tax. The Court cannot levy taxes. The Court said the penalty functioned as a tax for constitutional purposes...as a constitutional argument.

You're another nitwit with poor critical thinking skills. Is there another web site you can troll?

 

[Polk]

The tax argument is fine and dandy, but the Ginsburg concurrence makes more sense in consideration of precedent.

 

[Polk]

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?

you missed something in your research...

The Militia Act of 1792

Sec. 4. And be it further enacted, That the militia employed in the service of the United States, shall receive the same pay and allowances, as the troops of the United States

As the government paid for the troops supplies, weapons, etc., that allowance would have been given to the militia members as well... covering the cost of their required supplies.

That's not what that section means. It means that militiamen pressed into federal service would receive payment for their service. There is no mention of government paying for the weapons that they were requiring the purchase of. In fact, those aren't even provisions of the same law.

 

[Polk]

Didn't SCOTUS call it a tax?

So, it's a tax, no matter WHAT Dainty says it is.

Chief Justice Roberts did not label it a tax. The Court cannot levy taxes. The Court said the penalty functioned as a tax for constitutional purposes...as a constitutional argument.

You're another nitwit with poor critical thinking skills. Is there another web site you can troll?

That's a distinction without a difference.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

As you can see, there is a precedent for having the federal government force people to buy things against their will,

too stupid!! ideally a precedent occurs when you have many decisions in similar
matters at similar times . The mere fact that you have to go back 100's of years to a 100% dissimilar situation proves there was no precedent.

Morover, the entire purpose of the Constitution is to prevent a liberal government from forcing citizens to do things not enumerated; so even if there was a liberal case law precedent it should be overturned to return constitutionality to the matter.

Further it is pathetic for you to lie that you have discovered this precedent when the media reported it very very widely at the time of the decision. You should be ashamed, liberal fool.