[Kaslin]

There was no room for a barf alert in the title.

Notice that the author did not provide any proof about a law being passed in 1790 making it a mandate that Shipowners had to provide health insurance for their sailors. Like a typical liberal he pulled the lie out of his derriere and expects others to buy the lie hook line and sinker

[muir_redwoods]

The government does have the right to demand some conditions of a ship using the nations ports. That’s a different thing from requiring all citizens to buy insurance simply because they are alive.

[ATOMIC_PUNK]

Richard says:

April 14, 2012 at 9:18 am

The seamen mandate was a proper regulation of commerce, and is no different than the government saying lawyers must be registered with the Bar Association to represent clients.

The gun mandate was only for those reporting for militia duty, clearly a very direct and very necessary and very proper use of “To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia” power that is listed right in the Constitution. It was also more a dictate to the States rather than the individuals, as you must realize the Constitution also mentions the “Militia of the several States.” The States were the ones arming their own militias, so Congress was just saying what the minimum acceptable level was for arming the militia. It would be like Congress setting what the minimum acceptable level of pollution controls on cars for those manufacturing cars, which is a power Congress clearly uses at present and is not on shaky constitutional ground.

Report on the Subject of Manufactures (1790)

Report on the Subject of Manufactures (1790)

Alexander Hamilton Frank William Taussig (editor)

State Papers and Speeches on the Tariff

Harvard University

1892

This treatise, written by the United States' first Secretary of the Treasury, shows the word "commerce" to be a synonym for "trade" and not a catch-all phrase for economic activity. Alexander Hamilton believed in a strong central government and constantly tried to expand the role of the federal government, yet he understood that the word "commerce" did not refer to manufacturing or any other economic activity--it only referred to the trading of goods.

This fact is best shown in this phrase: "And there seems to be no room for a doubt that whatever concerns the general interests of learning, of agriculture, of manufactures, and of commerce, are within the sphere of the national councils, as far as regards an application of money."

If the word "commerce" broadly referred to farming, trade, and production, this entire sentence would have been redundant. But Hamilton, as well as the rest of our Founding Fathers, understood that the word "commerce" refers to trade only.

If this analysis is applied to the Constitution, it can be inferred that our modern understanding of the Commerce Clause is not in accordance with the intentions of the authors of the Constitution.

Video: Health Care's Individual Mandate: Not Justified by Commerce Clause

http://www.intellectualtakeout.org/library/video-podcast-media/video-health-cares-individual-mandate-not-justified-commerce-clause

[Lazamataz]

If Health Insurance Mandates Are Unconstitutional, Why Did the Founding Fathers Back Them?

For the same reason that the Founding Fathers preferred Apples over PCs, and Glocks over the 1911A .45 caliber: Ease of use.

Okay, okay, I'll be less flippant:

The two 'mandates' he cites are bunkum:

The first, that the able-bodied own arms, is specifically constitutionally authorized in the requirement to establish a civilian militia -- moreover, it did NOT require that someone BUY a firearm. If your uncle Ted had spares, he could give you his. This Obamacare Mandate FORCES you to BUY a policy.

Second: The health insurance he cites was no such thing. It was a straight-on tax for people who engaged in a particular commerce. Not very unusual, and not very spectacular.

Bastard liberals lie and twist.

[Red Badger]

Here is the law that he is referring to:

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/United_States_Statutes_at_Large/Volume_1/1st_Congress/2nd_Session/Chapter_29

[Tanniker Smith]

Nevermind that nothing in the text or history of the Constitution’s Commerce Clause indicates that Congress cannot mandate commercial purchases.

You know you're in for a wild ride when the argument starts with, "Well, nothing in the Constitution says you can't do it!!"

[CodeToad]

OK, then let’s mandate every must buy, own, and maintain a Christian Bible of their choosing and a firearm with ammunition. They must muster with it after every church sermon on Sunday, of which they must attend, and shoot that firearm in qualification matches.

That’ll send the liberals even more batty than they are.

[JediJones]

The problem is that a mandate is by far not the worst thing the marxists want to do. They didn’t even really want it. They want single-payer health care. And there is NO constitutional challenge available for that.

The courts are not the end of this problem by a longshot, and they will soon be a useless weapon in the fight. To stop this in the mid-to-long run, we either need to pass a constitutional amendment that would block this kind of government health care or hope that the marxists never again get as many elected officials in the government as they did in 2009-2010.

[Mike Darancette]

Looks like the Obamateur regime missed a chance to give the justices a history lesson. /sarc

[lowbridge]

Bump

[RightLady]

Did any of those imbeciles over at the New Republic ever take Constitutional Law?? Maybe from Obummer. They should read the 10th Amendment. functions not specified in that document are reserved for the States or the people. All they knew in those days was blood letting-—good grief!

[scott7278]

BTTT

[Captain Jack Aubrey]

These guys are idiots. Freedom to contract is a natural right that pre-exists the constitution. A contract requires willing parties. Coercion of a party voids the contract. How can the federal government coerce Americans into health insurance contracts and the contracts be binding? How about funeral insurance contracts? Life insurance contracts? Where will it end?

[jiggyboy]

This seems to have come fully formed in the last week or so. I’ve been looking via google for “george washington” plus “insurance” plus “seamen” prior to March 15, 2012 and find absolutely nothing.

You’d think that a Perry Mason “fact” like this would have existed at some point in the last two or three years and been brought up at the SC. I too call BS, and look forward to the inevitable debunking that it wasn’t actually a law, or it was in fact a directive by General (not President) George Washington, or something like that.

[fella]

Purchasing mandates are the same as quartering mandates in that the citizen must bear undue expense at the dictate of the government.

[zencycler]

States, or in cases of interstate commerce, the feds, CAN impose mandates on CHOICES we make in the marketplace, but perhaps NOT on our right to EXIST! Owning, operating or even working on a ship - like owning and driving a car - is and example of such a choice.

The courts will likely overturn this on the basis of it being an overreach of the Commerce Clause. If that's the case, Obamacare is out, but Romneycare stands, and some other states may choose to follow that example.

On the other hand, if it's overruled on the basis that it violates individual rights - that government cannot impose mandates on a person's right to exist - the Romneycare goes down as well. However, this is unlikely, since the 10th amendment gives states numerous and indefinite powers, which generally means they can mandate just about anything.

Kennedy's (the swing vote) record on three Commerce Clause cases is that he voted to limit federal authority on two, and uphold its authority on one. The 2005 case in which he granted federal authority involved a California law allowing for the growing and medical use of Marijuana, which stood in contradiction, not only to federal law, but to the other states. The reason cited for upholding federal authority under the Commerce Clause is that letting the California law stand would create the likelihood of homegrown Marijuana being transported to other states, and would undercut the ability to prohibit the drugs use in other states. Since this issue is not present with Obamacare, I think we'll see Kennedy voting with the Conservatives on those grounds.

[chris_bdba]

GEEZ where do they come up with these lies? For real words try this:
“The care of every man’s soul belongs to himself. But what if he neglect the care of it? Well what if he neglect the care of his health or estate, which more nearly relate to the state. Will the magistrate make a law that he shall not be poor or sick? Laws provide against injury from others; but not from ourselves. God himself will not save men against their wills…”Thomas Jefferson 1776

[Eric in the Ozarks]

Twisted logic 101.