Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Amendment10

Those are extremely interesting legal references, thanks. The one from 1936 is especially clear. People might argue that the older ones referencing “health laws” aren’t quite relevant, because the whole concept of government provided health care was unknown, and the reference might have been to things like rat control or quarantines. But, the 1936 quote is very specific.

I’ll listen to the Judge.


96 posted on 07/07/2014 5:46:14 AM PDT by Pearls Before Swine (e)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies ]


To: Pearls Before Swine; All
"... people might argue that the older ones referencing “health laws” aren’t quite relevant, because the whole concept of government provided health care was unknown [emphasis added], and the reference might have been to things like rat control or quarantines."

Thanks for commenting Pearls Before Swine. But with all due respect, you are in error concerning the history of federally mandated health insurance as per the following explanation.

Pro-Obamacare Democratcare advocates had pointed out the following to defend the constitutionality (ahem) of Democratcare. President John Adams had signed a bill in 1798 whcih required hospital insurance to be deducted from the pay of seamen.

An Act for the relief of sick and disabled seamen

So based on this hospital insurance bill signed by Presidet John Adams, the feds “obviously” have the constitutional authority to mandate that all citizens pay for healthcare insurance, right?

WRONG!

What all articles that I've seen for this mandated hospital insurance deduction for seamen fail to mention is the following straight from the Constitution (RTFM). Clause 17 of Section 8 of Article I gives examples of federal entities which are under the exclusive legislative control of Congress. The reason that Congress was able to mandate that seamen pay for medical insurance is because one example of a federal entity given in Clause 17 is dockyards. From Clause 17 of Section 8 of Article I:

"... and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards [emphasis added], and other needful Buildings; ..."

So Congress has a bona fide constitutional interest in dockyard operations which reasonably includes the welfare of seamen.

As a side note concerning Congress's interest in dockyards, please consider the following. Thomas Jefferson had noted that in the early days of the country, only the rich paid federal taxes.

“The rich alone use imported articles, and on these alone the whole taxes of the General Government are levied [emphasis added]. … Our revenues liberated by the discharge of the public debt, and its surplus applied to canals, roads, schools, etc., the farmer will see his government supported, his children educated, and the face of his country made a paradise by the contributions of the rich alone, without his being called on to spend a cent from his earnings.” —Thomas Jefferson to Thaddeus Kosciusko, 1811.

Did Jefferson say imported articles!? You mean the cargo from ships from across the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans which sailors moved from the ships to the dockyards? Again, tax-hungry Congress certainly does have a constitutionally justifiable interest in dockyards and the manpower needed to operate them.

97 posted on 07/07/2014 10:56:34 AM PDT by Amendment10
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 96 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson