ACA (a.k.a. Obamacare) Upheld

[cubby1223]

2nd Militia Act of 1792:
"Every citizen shall, within six months, provide himself with a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and an absak, a pouch containing a box with no less than 24 cartridges"

- signed by George Washington

So not only has it happened in the history of our country, it happened almost immediately after the ratification of the Constitution by the very first president. I'm not sure how George Washington came up with it though, unfortunately he is not here for you to ask so his reasoning might remain forever 'beyond you'.

I wonder why your quote is the way it is, when the actual act was:

"That every citizen, so enrolled and notified, shall, within six months thereafter,..."

 

[nehalem256]

Life expectancy in 1800 was about 36 years. The militia act automatically enrolled all men 18-45 in this militia. So your argument is that the government can't force the people to buy a product, but what they can do is say that basically every man in the entire country is now arbitrarily a member of some organization and then force them to buy a product. Totally different!

Little did I know that the ACA's first line should have been 'all people in the US are now part of a militia'. I'm sure your novel constitutional scholarship is going big places.

Not "some" organization. The military. Or do you believe that the draft is unconstitutional?

 

[nehalem256]

I am sorry, I should have said in the last 10 generations then. BTW, that law was never enforced and eventually repealed.

Which is probably why we never learned about Washington's million man army in history.

 

[fskimospy]

I wonder why your quote is the way it is, when the actual act was:

"That every citizen, so enrolled and notified, shall, within six months thereafter,..."

In the act basically every adult male was 'enrolled and notified'. (all men 18-45, when life expectancy was in the mid 30's). What's your point?

 

[fskimospy]

The 2nd Militia Act of 1792 was never brought before the SCOTUS (or any court that I can find for that matter) so we don't know if it was Constitutional or not.

Fern

So your argument is that it was unconstitutional then? Can you give any explanation for why people who actually wrote the Constitution enacted this law if it was unconstitutional?

All that is beside the point anyway, as the original argument was that such mandates had never existed and that the Constitution had within it a positive right to not be forced to buy anything. Since presumably conservatives are all about original intent, to write a law mandating individual purchases seems like a pretty powerful statement of original intent not to have that be barred.

You all seem to believe such a right exists, so where is it?

 

[fskimospy]

I am sorry, I should have said in the last 10 generations then. BTW, that law was never enforced and eventually repealed.

Well laws are either unconstitutional or they aren't, the amount of time between them is irrelevant. (at least if you believe in original intent as most conservatives do) Do you believe that George Washington and a Congress with 17 framers of the Constitution in it passed an unconstitutional law?

 

[nehalem256]

Well laws are either unconstitutional or they aren't, the amount of time between them is irrelevant. (at least if you believe in original intent as most conservatives do) Do you believe that George Washington and a Congress with 17 framers of the Constitution in it passed an unconstitutional law?

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

championed by Alexander Hamilton, first Secretary of the Treasury. Hamilton believed a central bank was necessary to stabilize and improve the nation's credit, and to improve handling of the financial business of the United States government under the newly enacted Constitution.
Officially proposed to the first session of the First Congress in 1790, Hamilton's Bank faced widespread resistance from opponents of increased federal power. Secretary of State Thomas Jefferson and James Madison led the opposition, which claimed that the bank was unconstitutional, and that it benefited merchants and investors at the expense of the majority of the population.

Looks to me like the founding fathers had conflicting views on what was constitutional or not.

 

[lopri]

Yet another rumor: Roberts wrote both Obamacare opinions.

My source insists that “most of the material in the first three quarters of the joint dissent was drafted in Chief Justice Roberts’ chambers in April and May.” Only the last portion of what eventually became the joint dissent was drafted without any participation by the chief justice

If this is true, it explains why the joint dissent becomes batshit crazy as they discuss severability and medicaid expansion in later part of their opinion. (and I'm giving myself credit!)

 

[lopri]

No matter what you think about Roberts' solo opinion, this isn't acceptable.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/vi...pilepsy_medication_effects_his_cognition.html

"Let's talk about Roberts. I'm going to tell you something that you're not going to hear anywhere else, that you must pay attention to. It's well known that Roberts, unfortunately for him, has suffered from epileptic seizures. Therefore he has been on medication. Therefore neurologists will tell you that medication used for seizure disorders, such as epilepsy, can introduce mental slowing, forgetfulness and other cognitive problems. And if you look at Roberts' writings you can see the cognitive dissociation in what he is saying," Michael Savage said on his radio program this evening.

 

[Jhhnn]

No matter what you think about Roberts' solo opinion, this isn't acceptable.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/vi...pilepsy_medication_effects_his_cognition.html

Like may right wing ideologues before him, Savage has no shame, no sense of morality beyond greed, avarice & manipulation of others. He & his fellow travelers have raised psychopathy to a malignant artform.

Utterly disgusting art, written in blood & hatred, but art nonetheless.

 

[nehalem256]

No matter what you think about Roberts' solo opinion, this isn't acceptable.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/vi...pilepsy_medication_effects_his_cognition.html

Well the real problem is that unless Michael Savage has some secret sources it appears to be a gross exaggeration.

Roberts suffered a seizure on July 30, 2007, while at his vacation home on Hupper Island off the village of Port Clyde in St. George, Maine.[50][51] As a result of the seizure he fell five to ten feet on a dock near his house but suffered only minor scrapes.[50] He was taken by private boat to the mainland[51] (which is several hundred yards from the island) and then by ambulance to Penobscot Bay Medical Center in Rockport, where he stayed overnight, according to Supreme Court spokesperson Kathy Arberg.[52] Doctors called the incident a benign idiopathic seizure, which means there was no identifiable physiological cause.[50][51][53][54]

Roberts had suffered a similar seizure in 1993.[50][51][53] After this first seizure, Roberts temporarily limited some of his activities, such as driving. According to Senator Arlen Specter, who chaired the Senate Judiciary Committee during Roberts's nomination to be Chief Justice in 2005, senators were aware of this seizure when they were considering his nomination, but the committee did not think it was significant enough to bring up during his confirmation hearings. Federal judges are not required by law to release information about their health.[50]

According to neurologist Dr. Marc Schlosberg of Washington Hospital Center, who has no direct connection to the Roberts case, someone who has had more than one seizure without any other cause is by definition determined to have epilepsy. After two seizures, the likelihood of another at some point is greater than 60 percent.[51] Dr. Steven Garner of New York Methodist Hospital, who is also uninvolved with the case, said that Roberts's previous history of seizures means that the second incident may be less serious than if this were a newly emerging problem.[53]

The Supreme Court said in a statement Roberts has "fully recovered from the incident," and a neurological evaluation "revealed no cause for concern." Dr. Sanjay Gupta, a CNN contributor and a neurosurgeon not involved in Roberts's case, said when an otherwise healthy person has a seizure, his doctor would investigate whether the patient had started any new medications and had normal electrolyte levels. If those two things were normal, then a brain scan would be performed. If Roberts does not have another seizure within a relatively short time period, Gupta said he was unsure if Roberts would be given the diagnosis of epilepsy. He said the Chief Justice may need to take an anti-seizure medication

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Roberts#Health

 

[lopri]

Well the real problem is that unless Michael Savage has some secret sources it appears to be a gross exaggeration.

I think you misunderstood what I considered unacceptable. (actually, disgusting)

 

[Charles Kozierok]

Like may right wing ideologues before him, Savage has no shame, no sense of morality beyond greed, avarice & manipulation of others. He & his fellow travelers have raised psychopathy to a malignant artform.

I've listened to Savage for years and he isn't actually like most right-wingers. He's in his own league of paranoia, irrationality and bile, and he'll toss out anything that enters his addled little mind, whether it makes any sense or not, whether there's any evidence for it or not.

A disturbed, bitter man. But can be quite entertaining in his better moments.

 

[lopri]

As more leaks flow, the more likely that it is the court's conservatives who pressured and stressed out Roberts inside the SCOTUS, not some liberal pundits outside who threatened to disavow the court's legitimacy in case the court strikes down the ACA. Those conservative justices probably leaked Roberts' position to outsiders, which in turn provoked conservative pundits to falsely (but knowngly) accuse the liberals. These justices are a disgrace to our judiciary.

To be clear, at this point only two facts are confirmed: 1) According to Crawford, Roberts flipped his vote midstream; and 2) someone within the Court must have leaked her this information. It is perfectly appropriate for Justice Kennedy, or any other justice, for that matter, to internally lobby Roberts to try to obtain his vote in an important case. If a member of the Court has turned to conservative columnists like Will or reporters like Crawford in order to pressure and then embarrass Roberts, however, that would be a significant and unusual escalation from the justices’ regular tactics.

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/20...ndits-may-have-started-more-than-a-month-ago/

I can provide the same story from a conservative blog. ThinkProgress happens to be more legible so I linked to the article there.

 

[DCal430]

As more leaks flow, the more likely that it is the court's conservatives who pressured and stressed out Roberts inside the SCOTUS, not some liberal pundits outside who threatened to disavow the court's legitimacy in case the court strikes down the ACA. Those conservative justices probably leaked Roberts' position to outsiders, which in turn provoked conservative pundits to falsely (but knowngly) accuse the liberals. These justices are a disgrace to our judiciary.



http://thinkprogress.org/justice/20...ndits-may-have-started-more-than-a-month-ago/

I can provide the same story from a conservative blog. ThinkProgress happens to be more legible so I linked to the article there.

I really hope her leak isn't one of the justices, because that would be shamefull.

 

[trenchfoot]

I've listened to Savage for years and he isn't actually like most right-wingers. He's in his own league of paranoia, irrationality and bile, and he'll toss out anything that enters his addled little mind, whether it makes any sense or not, whether there's any evidence for it or not.

A disturbed, bitter man. But can be quite entertaining in his better moments.

Sounds exactly like Limbaugh. I guess their MO is a proven formula for attracting conservative viewers.

 

[fskimospy]

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


Looks to me like the founding fathers had conflicting views on what was constitutional or not.

And there's no evidence that such a controversy existed here.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

Sounds exactly like Limbaugh.

He's much smarter than Limbaugh -- but also much more nuts.

Remember all the crap Limbaugh got into over calling that woman a "slut"? Savage says worse things than that in every show.

He's actually a pariah even in his own industry. Lots of listeners, but he's basically shut out of the mainstream conservative media. You'll never see him mentioned or interviewed on other big talk shows or on Fox News.

 

[Fern]

Originally Posted by Fern View Post
The 2nd Militia Act of 1792 was never brought before the SCOTUS (or any court that I can find for that matter) so we don't know if it was Constitutional or not.

Fern

So your argument is that it was unconstitutional then?

My argument is that it cannot automatically be assumed Constitutional because the question was never raised.

Can you give any explanation for why people who actually wrote the Constitution enacted this law if it was unconstitutional?

All that is beside the point anyway, as the original argument was that such mandates had never existed and that the Constitution had within it a positive right to not be forced to buy anything. Since presumably conservatives are all about original intent, to write a law mandating individual purchases seems like a pretty powerful statement of original intent not to have that be barred.

You all seem to believe such a right exists, so where is it?

I don't equate the raising of a militia, including a requirement that they arm themselves, with the issue of forcing everyone to own a 'thing' merely because Congress thinks it's a good idea. So, from my perspective your question is fatally flawed and one I cannot address.

I'm curious, I haven't read the entire opinion but was the 2nd Militia Act of 1792 discussed in support of the mandate penalty/tax? If not, that's a powerful indication the justices don't see any relevance either.

As regards your assertion that someone is proclaiming "the Constitution had within it a positive right to not be forced to buy anything" I cannot share that because I view it as 'backwards'.

While some rights (e.g., to bear arms and vote) for individuals are laid in that manner, the federal govt's powers are enumerated and limited to only those. Art. 10 says the rest remain with the states and the people.

So, my contention would be that the power to force people to own a product is not enumerated in the Constitution, thus the govt doesn't have it. I.e., not that there is a statement that we as individuals have a right to not be forced to own something.

Fern

 

[lopri]

Of course justice ginsberg mentions it in her dissent. I will find it for you when I get hom latr.

Typing on a phone

 

[xj0hnx]

Then the individual mandate for health care isn't a 'must purchase' either as you are only required to be covered by insurance, not be paying for it yourself.

You really didn't think that one through.

So much fail, so little post. Is health insurance a one time purchase?

 

[fskimospy]

So much fail, so little post. Is health insurance a one time purchase?

Irrelevant.

 

[xj0hnx]

Irrelevant.

Yes, the militia act you are trying to compare to Obamacare is completely irrelevant.

 

[fskimospy]

Yes, the militia act you are trying to compare to Obamacare is completely irrelevant.

Nope, it is entirely relevant to what was being discussed, you just made a really bad comparison. Then you compounded it by trying to argue that somehow its different if the government only makes you get something once. Strike 2!

 

[xj0hnx]

Nope, it is entirely relevant to what was being discussed, you just made a really bad comparison. Then you compounded it by trying to argue that somehow its different if the government only makes you get something once. Strike 2!

Dude, it isn't even close to the comparable. I can see where you think the principle might be comparable, but the reality is that the two are nothing alike.