Thread: Obama And Judicial Review

Originally Posted by thanatos144

No they didn't...Again I know to you liberals it is hard to understand personal responsibility but they said the government couldn't take their guns not that they had to buy one.

Wrong. In 1792 congress passed the Milita Act. Every able bodied man had to join their state militia and had to provide their own weapons.... and not just any weapons but certain types and amounts of weapons and ammunition

The second Act, passed May 8, 1792, provided for the organization of the state militias. It conscripted every "free able-bodied white male citizen" between the ages of 18 and 45 into a local militia company overseen by the state. Militia members were to arm themselves with a musket, bayonet and belt, two spare flints, a cartridge box with 24 bullets, and a knapsack. Men owning rifles were required to provide a powder horn, 1/4 pound of gun powder, 20 rifle balls, a shooting pouch, and a knapsack.[4] Some occupations were exempt, such as congressmen, stagecoach drivers, and ferryboatmen. Otherwise, men were required to report for training twice a year, usually in the Spring and Fall.

So... can you explain how congress passing a law requiring people to buy this equipment is different from passing a law requiring people to buy insurance? Why is one constitutional and the other not?

Originally Posted by Unique POV

Wrong. In 1792 congress passed the Milita Act. Every able bodied man had to join their state militia and had to provide their own weapons.... and not just any weapons but certain types and amounts of weapons and ammunition

The second Act, passed May 8, 1792, provided for the organization of the state militias. It conscripted every "free able-bodied white male citizen" between the ages of 18 and 45 into a local militia company overseen by the state. Militia members were to arm themselves with a musket, bayonet and belt, two spare flints, a cartridge box with 24 bullets, and a knapsack. Men owning rifles were required to provide a powder horn, 1/4 pound of gun powder, 20 rifle balls, a shooting pouch, and a knapsack.[4] Some occupations were exempt, such as congressmen, stagecoach drivers, and ferryboatmen. Otherwise, men were required to report for training twice a year, usually in the Spring and Fall.

So... can you explain how congress passing a law requiring people to buy this equipment is different from passing a law requiring people to buy insurance? Why is one constitutional and the other not?

They could have moved................Again no one was forced to own a gun for being alive. by the way the draft isnt something new. It was standard practice here till about 50 years or so ago. It would also seem pretty stupid to be a soldier and not be armed.....Well maybe not to a liberal who thinks wars should be fought with hugs and rainbows and that no matter what the USA is the bad guy.

Originally Posted by thanatos144

They could have moved................Again no one was forced to own a gun for being alive. by the way the draft isnt something new. It was standard practice here till about 40 years or so ago. It would also seem pretty stupid to be a soldier and not be armed.....Well maybe not to a liberal who thinks wars should be fought with hugs and rainbows and that no matter what the USA is the bad guy.

They could have moved.... out of the country. This was a federal law and affected all able bodied men of age in the entire country. And this is not about a draft. It is about requiring people to purchase specific items. Read the list again. The federal government did not draft these men and then provide these weapons for them. It drafted these men and then required they supply these specific weapons for themselves.

Originally Posted by thanatos144

Funny how you show your ignorance that they didnt demand the people buy insurance just cause they are born. There is a difference to regulate a trade and regulating people life.....But liberals like you cant understand this.

NOTE: In a study by the kaiser foundation (published in SENIOR NEWS) it was revealed that 70% of Americans want "Medicare" to continue "as is" and making sure everyone gets the same defined benefits.

Originally Posted by Unique POV

They could have moved.... out of the country. This was a federal law and affected all able bodied men of age in the entire country. And this is not about a draft. It is about requiring people to purchase specific items. Read the list again. The federal government did not draft these men and then provide these weapons for them. It drafted these men and then required they supply these specific weapons for themselves.

The draft did not make you own a personal gun. A state millitia was regulated by the STATE not the federal government.

Originally Posted by skeptic1

NOTE: In a study by the kaiser foundation (published in SENIOR NEWS) it was revealed that 70% of Americans want "Medicare" to continue "as is" and making sure everyone gets the same defined benefits.

70% of seniors does not make 70% of Americans

Originally Posted by thanatos144

The draft did not make you own a personal gun. A state millitia was regulated by the STATE not the federal government.

Again... I'm not talking about a draft. I'm talking about the militia act 1792 that required men to own certain weapons. The militia act was a FEDERAL law requiring every man in the COUNTRY to join their local militia... and to provide their own weapons. I posted a synopsis of this FEDERAL law enacted by CONGRESS that made these requirements quite clear. Read it again.

Originally Posted by Unique POV

This was a federal law and affected all able bodied men of age....

So, by your own admission what you are referring to did not apply to everyone, only the lawfully determined militia.

Imageine telling all your friends you're not an able-bodied man.

Originally Posted by JohnLocke

So, by your own admission what you are referring to did not apply to everyone, only the lawfully determined militia.

So then if the insurance mandate only applied to able bodied men between the ages of 18-45.... THEN it would be constitutional?

Originally Posted by Unique POV

Wrong. In 1792 congress passed the Milita Act. Every able bodied man had to join their state militia and had to provide their own weapons.... and not just any weapons but certain types and amounts of weapons and ammunition

The second Act, passed May 8, 1792, provided for the organization of the state militias. It conscripted every "free able-bodied white male citizen" between the ages of 18 and 45 into a local militia company overseen by the state. Militia members were to arm themselves with a musket, bayonet and belt, two spare flints, a cartridge box with 24 bullets, and a knapsack. Men owning rifles were required to provide a powder horn, 1/4 pound of gun powder, 20 rifle balls, a shooting pouch, and a knapsack.[4] Some occupations were exempt, such as congressmen, stagecoach drivers, and ferryboatmen. Otherwise, men were required to report for training twice a year, usually in the Spring and Fall.

So... can you explain how congress passing a law requiring people to buy this equipment is different from passing a law requiring people to buy insurance? Why is one constitutional and the other not?

Militia power vs. commerce power. That's like saying if Congress can punish counterfeiting, how come they can't punish murder?

Originally Posted by adaher

Militia power vs. commerce power. That's like saying if Congress can punish counterfeiting, how come they can't punish murder?

Once again... Had the govt supplied the militia with weapons... you'd have a valid point. They did not. It required the men to purchase their own supplies, and not only that... but specific types and quantities.

But if you want to go the commerce route... how does healthcare not qualify as commerce? How many healthcare supplies never cross any state lines?

The government cannot create commerce in order to regulate it. The government can create a militia in order to regulate it.