Supreme Court Issue: Can The Government MANDATE the purchase of a product?

[Sallow]

You're not mandated to buy clothing like you'd be mandated to buy health-care, though. (and I'm not taking sides on the issue).

Because, noone's forcing you to show your face in public and you ARE allowed to walk the home naked, so that doesn't constitute a mandate.

No one is mandated to buy clothing; it is not illegal to remain naked in your own abode. When you venture out, you expose yourself (pun intended) to arrest. Not for not buying clothes, but for violating a law.

Can the government require gun locks? Require a homeowner to have garbage collected? Deny the right any dog can exercise and pee on a fire hydrant?

IMHO the libertarian/TP movement has crossed over the fringe to absolute foolishness.

If this gets struck down..and there is a good chance it might..then it sets in motion some very dangerous notions that would be injurious to the type of society we now enjoy.

Imagine if doctors and lawyers started to challenge government licensing practices? Food drug and manufacturing industries challenging safety standards? Heck, at the end of the day, we could end up with a Balkanized United States...a break up. And a dissolution that would put our standard of living with the Third World.

That's sort of what Conservatives have and always been looking for..

 

[Skull Pilot]

You're not mandated to buy clothing like you'd be mandated to buy health-care, though. (and I'm not taking sides on the issue).

Because, noone's forcing you to show your face in public and you ARE allowed to walk the home naked, so that doesn't constitute a mandate.

No one is mandated to buy clothing; it is not illegal to remain naked in your own abode. When you venture out, you expose yourself (pun intended) to arrest. Not for not buying clothes, but for violating a law.

Can the government require gun locks? Require a homeowner to have garbage collected? Deny the right any dog can exercise and pee on a fire hydrant?

IMHO the libertarian/TP movement has crossed over the fringe to absolute foolishness.

If this gets struck down..and there is a good chance it might..then it sets in motion some very dangerous notions that would be injurious to the type of society we now enjoy.

Imagine if doctors and lawyers started to challenge government licensing practices? Food drug and manufacturing industries challenging safety standards? Heck, at the end of the day, we could end up with a Balkanized United States...a break up. And a dissolution that would put our standard of living with the Third World.

That's sort of what Conservatives have and always been looking for..

So it's better to let the government tell a farmer he can't grow wheat for his own consumption because him not buying it is detrimental to the economy?

What's next we all have to buy a Chevy because the fucking government owns the company and wants to turn a profit? After all not buying a Chevy could be detrimental to the economy?


A very close friend of mine buys almost no food at all. He has a spectacular garden and a greenhouse and grows well over 90% of his own fruit and vegetables. He hunts in season and lays up enough venison and fowl to last a year or more. In fact he gives a lot of meat away to his friends.

Should the fucking government wrongly enforce the commerce clause and tell him that he now has to buy his produce and meat because him not doing so is detrimental to the economy?

And licensing requirements have absolutely nothing to do with the commerce clause. Drs, etc are licensed in separately in each state not federally.

 

[M14 Shooter]

There is some very compelling precedent. The Militia Act of 1792 required every "able bodied male" to serve in the state militia and presented a list of firearms, one of which he was required to report to duty with. By effect, this would require said males to buy or otherwise acquire a gun.

Yes. But this is pursuant to a power specifically given to the federal government, and is a condition related to state and federal service, not a blanket requirement of simply being a citizen.

Also, the Founding Fathers mandated that all merchant seamen purchase health insurance.

No different than the requirement that all freight handlers purchase liability insurance.
Both are a specific requirement of engaging in commerce, not a blanket requirement of simply being a citizen.

SO... neither are relevant to the issue at hand.

 

[Foxfyre]

If the Supreme Court upholds the argument that the government does NOT have the right to mandate the purchase of health insurance, can I use that as precedent in my case against the government mandating that I buy and use clothing when out in public?




All About Nude Hiking | Open Journey

The government cannot mandate that you buy clothing. It CAN mandate that you wear sufficient clothing in public so as not to be obscene or unsanitary. It CANNOT mandate what style of clothing you wear.

The government cannot mandate that you have a driver's license. It CAN mandate that you have a driver's license when operating a motor vehicle on a public road. It CANNOT mandate that you have a driver's license in order to drive on your own property.

The government cannot mandate that you have auto liability insurance. It CAN mandate that you have auto insurance if your vehicle is used by anybody on a public road. It CANNOT mandate that you have collision or comprehensive insurance, however, as that is not involved in any risk you create for others.

The government cannot mandate that you have liability insurance. It CAN mandate that you have liability insurance or proof of qualification to be self insured before you are issued a business license. It CANNOT mandate that you carry monies & securities or other property insurance as that is not involved in any risk you create for others.

The government cannot require you to buy a business license. It CAN mandate that you have a business license in order to do business in a township. It CANNOT mandate that you use any particular process or service in the conduct of that business.

************************************

So, in my opinion (and apparently in the opinion of a Flordia court) the government cannot require me to have health insurance. It CAN mandate that I am not entitled to routine healthcare if I do not have insurance or am unable to pay for it out of pocket and it should.

************************************

In every case here, the principle is whether we are putting others at risk or requiring others to provide what we want or need. If we are not, the government has no jurisdiction. If we are, then the government does have jurisdiction. And in all cases what we choose to do is voluntary on our part or we can opt out by choosing not to put others at risk or provide what we want or need.

And in every case, there is nothing to prevent people from voluntarily choosing to assume risk or voluntarily providing what others want or need.

But the government should never have the power to mandate what one citizen must give up in order for another citizen to have what he wants or needs. Once you give government that kind of power, it can take anything it wants from anybody.