The Founding Fathers . . .

Perknose

Forum Director & Omnipotent Overlord
Forum Director
Oct 9, 1999
46,865
10,651
147
Passed mandates into law, forcing American citizens to buy stuff. Damn commies like President George Washington and President John Adams did so. It was their . . . Original Intent!

Some spectacular historical reporting by Professor Einer Elhauge of Harvard Law School in the New Republic thoroughly rebut the argument. He has found three mandate equivalents passed into law by the early Congresses—in which a significant number of founders served—and reports that these bills were signed into law by none other than Presidents George Washington and John Adams. As Founders go, one might consider them pretty senior in the hierarchy. Their acts can probably be relied upon to give us a reasonable idea what the Founders intended to be the scope of congressional and governmental power.

Amazingly, the examples of individual mandates passed by the founders are so directly applicable that the claim that original intent precludes affirming the heath care act should become almost laughable:

In 1790, a Congress including 20 Founders passed a law requiring that ship owners buy medical insurance for their seamen. Washington signed it into law.

In 1792, another law signed by Washington required that all able-bodied men buy a firearm. (So much for the argument that Congress can’t force us to participate in commerce.)

And in 1798, a Congress with five framers passed a law requiring that all seamen buy hospital insurance for themselves. Adams signed this legislation.

In aggregate, these laws show that the Founders and the Congress of the time were willing to force all of us to participate in a particular act of commence and were comfortable requiring both the owner of a business and the individual employee to buy insurance in order to assure that health costs would be covered at a societal level. That is a pretty complete rebuttal to all the claims being made by the originalists as they relate to the health care act.

But what is so powerful about these historical finds is not just that they rebut the specific argument about original intent as applied to the health care act. This history lays bare the ahistorical nature of the justices’ claims at another and deeper level. For the types of bill passed in 1790, 1792, and 1798 show the Founders to have been doing exactly what congress did especially well in the era of FDR—--experimenting with solutions and approaches to resolving social issues in ways that made government part of creative problem solving.

These examples show the fallacy and the false rigidity that the originalists seek to impose on our government. In their effort to cabin and restrain the government—their ideology of the moment—they seek to have the benefit of the claim that the founders shared such a limited approach to governing. In fact, the approach to governing that these acts demonstrate is more nuanced and thoughtful. As with so many of the claims of the originalists, a slight understanding of the true history shows that the originalists’ view is mere ideology being imposed on a false understanding of history.

Link to article.
 

brianmanahan

Lifer
Sep 2, 2006
24,624
6,011
136
"In 1792, another law signed by Washington required that all able-bodied men buy a firearm."

:thumbsup:
 

nehalem256

Lifer
Apr 13, 2012
15,669
8
0
Why was the law just for seamen?

Why not for everyone? Running a shipping company or being a seaman is a chosen act of commerce.

Living in the United States is not an act of commerce.
 

CallMeJoe

Diamond Member
Jul 30, 2004
6,938
5
81
Why was the law just for seamen?

Why not for everyone? Running a shipping company or being a seaman is a chosen act of commerce.

Living in the United States is not an act of commerce.
So you would support insurance mandates if only they were more narrowly defined?

What about the firearms mandate? That was for all able bodied men - not exactly a chosen class.
 

alzan

Diamond Member
May 21, 2003
3,860
2
0
So the Founding Fathers were pro-Universal Heathcare, with an individual mandate even?

I knew those guys were way ahead of their time but that one takes the cake.

The more I learn about them the more I like them.

Thank you Professor Elhauge, and you, Perknose, for the thread.
 

monovillage

Diamond Member
Jul 3, 2008
8,444
1
0
I'm amazed. A liberal Democrat Harvard law professor actually found justification in the history of this country to totally support his political stance and opinion. Wow, I'm stunned. Who would have ever thought it?
 

Bowfinger

Lifer
Nov 17, 2002
15,776
392
126
Wow! Very interesting. Was any of this brought out during the SCOTUS hearing? I don't recall hearing anything like it, but I didn't read the complete record, just the highlights.
 

BoberFett

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
37,562
9
81
Then it's a good thing liberals like to remind us how awful and naive the founding fathers were. Bunch of slave owning mysoginists who couldn't understand how the world would change. We can't be tied to their ignorant ways...
 

Bowfinger

Lifer
Nov 17, 2002
15,776
392
126
I'm amazed. A liberal Democrat Harvard law professor actually found justification in the history of this country to totally support his political stance and opinion. Wow, I'm stunned. Who would have ever thought it?
Can we safely assume you won't address the facts raised this time either, let alone rebut them with a factual argument of your own?
 

EagleKeeper

Discussion Club Moderator<br>Elite Member
Staff member
Oct 30, 2000
42,589
5
0
As others have stated; it was just for a small specific class of people. There was no broad sweeping mandate for everyone.

and regarding a well regulated militia - how can the liberals complain?
 

simpletron

Member
Oct 31, 2008
189
14
81
http://www.politifact.com/rhode-isl...d-law-professor-says-early-congress-mandated/

I think politifact is getting lazy.

For the 1790 law.
http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llsl&fileName=001/llsl001.db&recNum=257
The captain must keep a up-to-date medicine chest or pay for the crew's healthcare. Sounds more like a OSHA requirement with teeth.

For the 1792 law.
http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llsl&fileName=001/llsl001.db&recNum=394
The Act is called "An Act more effectually to provide for the national defence by establishing an uniform militia throught the united states" and the act is all about militia based military. The militia is required to buy arms. (it just happens that unless otherwise exempt, all males 18 to 45 are drafted into the militia)

For the 1798 law, read section 3 on the next page.
http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llsl&fileName=001/llsl001.db&recNum=728
It isn't an insurance mandate, but the federal government taxing seaman and the federal government paying out a benefit to hospitals on thier behalf and building/buying hospitals out of those funds. This is more like medicare than anything else.
 

CallMeJoe

Diamond Member
Jul 30, 2004
6,938
5
81
I addressed the most important facts in that story.
I suppose to you a peg from which you can suspend a logical fallacy supporting your political doctrine would seem the most important element of any story.

Ad hominem in this instance.
 

Double Trouble

Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
9,270
103
106
http://www.politifact.com/rhode-isl...d-law-professor-says-early-congress-mandated/

I think politifact is getting lazy.

For the 1790 law.
http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llsl&fileName=001/llsl001.db&recNum=257
The captain must keep a up-to-date medicine chest or pay for the crew's healthcare. Sounds more like a OSHA requirement with teeth.

For the 1792 law.
http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llsl&fileName=001/llsl001.db&recNum=394
The Act is called "An Act more effectually to provide for the national defence by establishing an uniform militia throught the united states" and the act is all about militia based military. The militia is required to buy arms. (it just happens that unless otherwise exempt, all males 18 to 45 are drafted into the militia)

For the 1798 law, read section 3 on the next page.
http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llsl&fileName=001/llsl001.db&recNum=728
It isn't an insurance mandate, but the federal government taxing seaman and the federal government paying out a benefit to hospitals on thier behalf and building/buying hospitals out of those funds. This is more like medicare than anything else.

Thanks for that post. I was too lazy to go look up the actual laws cited, but I suspected they were likely to be misrepresented to "prove" a political point by a liberal prof. Looks like my suspicion was correct.
 

CallMeJoe

Diamond Member
Jul 30, 2004
6,938
5
81
...It isn't an insurance mandate, but the federal government taxing seaman and the federal government paying out a benefit to hospitals on thier behalf and building/buying hospitals out of those funds. This is more like medicare than anything else.
Collecting money from individuals, pooling it to pay for medical expenses as required...

...nothing at all like insurance...
 

monovillage

Diamond Member
Jul 3, 2008
8,444
1
0
I suppose to you a peg from which you can suspend a logical fallacy supporting your political doctrine would seem the most important element of any story.

Ad hominem in this instance.

I'll also be amazed when a Pulitzer prize goes to a liberal Democrat journalist and the sun rises in the east.
 

Anarchist420

Diamond Member
Feb 13, 2010
8,645
0
76
www.facebook.com
Damn commies like President George Washington and President John Adams did so. It was their . . . Original Intent!
You're actually right. However, you should change the thread title to: "The Federalists...", because the Antifederalists were the true founders and they opposed mandates. The U.S. Articles of Federal Republic and the Federalists who supported it were unAmerican.
 

CallMeJoe

Diamond Member
Jul 30, 2004
6,938
5
81
You're actually right. However, you should change the thread title to: "The Federalists...", because the Antifederalists were the true founders and they opposed mandates. The U.S. Articles of Federal Republic and the Federalists who supported it were unAmerican.
May I inquire where they hide the secret list of "true founders" that excludes George Washington and John Adams?
 

simpletron

Member
Oct 31, 2008
189
14
81
Collecting money from individuals, pooling it to pay for medical expenses as required...

...nothing at all like insurance...

The author stated:
And in 1798, a Congress with five framers passed a law requiring that all seamen buy hospital insurance for themselves. Adams signed this legislation.

The seaman are taxed and the government pays out a medical benefit. Seaman aren't buying anything from a private company. This act is like medicare/universal healthcare for seaman, not the individual mandate for seaman that the author is try to make the act out to be.
 

CallMeJoe

Diamond Member
Jul 30, 2004
6,938
5
81
The author stated:
And in 1798, a Congress with five framers passed a law requiring that all seamen buy hospital insurance for themselves. Adams signed this legislation.

The seaman are taxed and the government pays out a medical benefit. Seaman aren't buying anything from a private company. This act is like medicare/universal healthcare for seaman, not the individual mandate for seaman that the author is try to make the act out to be.
I stand corrected. I must agree completely that the Founding Fathers obviously preferred a government-administered single payer health care system.
 

drebo

Diamond Member
Feb 24, 2006
7,034
1
81
I stand corrected. I must agree completely that the Founding Fathers obviously preferred a government-administered single payer health care system.

If the government wants to provide healthcare, then the government should run hospitals and hire doctors directly.

Having two or three middlemen in the form of private practitioners and insurance companies makes it nothing more than corporate welfare for the healthcare profession.

However, the government should give me the option to seek private practice or medical insurance if I don't want to use the government system. I should be able to opt-out.
 

ky54

Senior member
Mar 30, 2010
532
1
76
This is hardly a new position. Charles Beard's, "An Economic Interpretation of the Constitution Of The US" stated long ago that the Constitution was written in such a way so the founders, like Washington, who had invested heavily in the revolution would get their money back:

The movement for the Constitution of the United states was originated and carried through principally by four groups of personalty interests which had been adversely affected under the Articles of Confederation: money, public securities, manufactures, and trade and shipping:

The first firm steps toward the formation of the Constitution were taken by a small and active group of men immediately interested through their personal possessions in the outcome of their labors.

No popular vote was taken directly or indirectly on the proposition to call the Convention which drafted the Constitution.

A large propertyless mass was, under the prevailing suffrage qualifications, excluded at the outset from participation (through representatives) in the work of framing the Constitution.

http://teachingamericanhistory.org/library/index.asp?document=2324

 

bfdd

Lifer
Feb 3, 2007
13,312
1
0
http://www.politifact.com/rhode-isl...d-law-professor-says-early-congress-mandated/

I think politifact is getting lazy.

For the 1790 law.
http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llsl&fileName=001/llsl001.db&recNum=257
The captain must keep a up-to-date medicine chest or pay for the crew's healthcare. Sounds more like a OSHA requirement with teeth.

For the 1792 law.
http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llsl&fileName=001/llsl001.db&recNum=394
The Act is called "An Act more effectually to provide for the national defence by establishing an uniform militia throught the united states" and the act is all about militia based military. The militia is required to buy arms. (it just happens that unless otherwise exempt, all males 18 to 45 are drafted into the militia)

For the 1798 law, read section 3 on the next page.
http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llsl&fileName=001/llsl001.db&recNum=728
It isn't an insurance mandate, but the federal government taxing seaman and the federal government paying out a benefit to hospitals on thier behalf and building/buying hospitals out of those funds. This is more like medicare than anything else.
Yeah, way different than the shit I was reading too. Article puts way to much spin on these acts.