Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, That each and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective States, resident therein, who is or shall be of age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years shall, within six months, provide himself with a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack, a pouch, with a box therein, to contain not less than twenty four cartridges, suited to the bore of his musket or firelock, each cartridge to contain a proper quantity of powder and ball; or with a good rifle, knapsack, shot-pouch, and powder-horn, twenty balls suited to the bore of his rifle, and a quarter of a pound of powder. - The Second Militia Act of 1792.
If an individual mandate was legal for George Washington, it's legal for Barack Obama.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
elfs
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2010-03-24 03:02 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-03-24 03:08 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-03-24 05:18 pm (UTC)My god! What will these fiends do next? Free education? Clean drinking water? Access to public roads and free travel between states? Those sick f***ing bastards!
no subject
Date: 2010-03-24 05:30 pm (UTC)Myself, I'm a little encouraged that the right-wingers seem to be veering away from arguing that the reform measures are bad policy, and focusing more on trying to reverse them on a technicality. A technicality which, whether you agree with it or not, has been settled law for a long, long time.
Number 127
no subject
Date: 2010-03-24 06:55 pm (UTC)If medical insurance were done the same way... Hey. I live in California. We're left-leaning and would probably still have good coverage whereas the yokels in red-states would just fuck themselves over.
There's a mean part of me that's kind of for this. We goddamned California liberals create the lions share of the GDP and our taxes are constantly being fed to subsidies and welfare for red staters who then whine about it.
But. I grew up in rural Oklahoma and if it weren't for a decent public education system, I'd probably STILL be living with a bunch of ignorant slack-jawed rednecks and I know there are plenty of other people there who are like me and I'd rather not abandon them just because their society is populated by a bunch of selfish dumb asses.
I just don't get the conservative position on this one. "We're going to punish children and old people for the failures of Reaganomics and the stock market collapse!" How about we focus on creating some new industry in the US and actually prosecute the greedy fuckers that plunged us all into the recession? Seems like a better set of priorities than pissing on someone's poor sick grandmother.
no subject
Date: 2010-03-24 05:55 pm (UTC)If you doubt it, just take a survey of the residents of Manhattan for example. (many of whom do not own cars)
And even for those who do own cars, self insurance (proof of financial ability to pay in lieu of insuring through an insurance company) is always an option.
no subject
Date: 2010-03-24 06:36 pm (UTC)Also, polls indicate that most conservatives do not live in Manhattan so your argument is a bit tenuous. I grew up in the midwest. Getting around without a car is extremely difficult. Being employed without a car is nearly impossible. So car insurance is 'optional' for inner-city blacks and predominantly left-leaning urbanites but more or less required for exo and sub urbanites who poll more to the right? You'd think they'd be a lot MORE pissed about Car Insurance than Health Insurance.
Claiming that you can pay out of pocket and don't need insurance? Don't make me laugh. How many americans do you know who could make that fly if a cop pulled them over?
Now perhaps if we had a nationalized public transportation system I would concede that drivers insurance is not a mandatory bill but as things stand, it's a snow job to claim it's not.
It's a nice conservative talking point though. I've seen it thoughtlessly parroted in a number of places. It sounds good if you switch your brain off.
no subject
Date: 2010-03-24 08:39 pm (UTC)As for the drivel about where conservatives live and who lives in downtown Manhattan all I can say is....put the bottle down before you hurt your liver.
As for making it fly with a cop and whether or not the claim that "car insurance is required for everyone" is bogus....I can speak to both firsthand as I self-insure.
So perhaps it is you that need to check your facts.
no subject
Date: 2010-03-24 09:32 pm (UTC)2) Don't blame me for polling demographics, and even if the demographics are wrong, 'New York Liberals' and 'San Francisco Liberals' are common rhetoric from the right and we were talking about the perception of the right. Resorting to personal attacks will not help you argue your case. It's just kind of sad.
3) Okay, so out with it then. Are you a liar or a moron? Per what I've read you need to have at least $50,000 in a frozen asset as a deposit to be self-insured. My annual car insurance is about $250. So if I had a spare $50,000 laying around (which like the vast majority of americans, I don't) I might be inclined to invest it in a CD or money market or something. You know... Something that would generate far more than a fraction of a percent of interest per year. 'Self Insured' seems pretty stupid.
But perhaps you're talking about 'No fault insurance'. That stuff is great! Just great! When I was 19 I got hit by some dumbass drunk driver in Pennsylvania. They have 'no fault insurance' So... Hey lucky me. Even though I was a pedestrian, I had car insurance. Otherwise I'd have been on the hook for the $30,000 in medical bills. My insurance rates went up because some dumbtard ran me down. Isn't that awesome? If I were poor, I'd have been royally f***ed. He drives off with a dented fender and a traffic ticket, I get out of the hospital a few days later and live the rest of my life with artificial teeth and scars from where my face was stitched back together. EVERYBODY WINS! Or wait no. That's: The guy with the money wins. The student working at Wendy's is left with permanent damage and a pile of bills. So which is it? Did you lie for the sake of argument? Are you stupid with your money? Or are you merely smokescreening by using the wrong term to refer to another model of insurance? Hmm?
no subject
Date: 2010-03-24 10:51 pm (UTC)In most states your deposit does not have to be in a frozen no-interest state. You can continue to invest and earn returns/interest on the money. All you need to do is certify that you maintain a sufficient floor in convertible assets.
no subject
Date: 2010-03-24 11:26 pm (UTC)Or wait let me guess. The investment is somehow insured through another method that's cheaper so that if you screw up driving, it hurts other people with investment insurance so that you can get 'free' car insurance.
Or do you simply plan to have a creative way of getting out of paying any debts if you hit someone? That's a fine game for those who have money. If someone is injured because of you and facing a lot of debt because of you, it's that much harder for them to pursue a claim against you and since you have proof of pretty good money on hand, you can probably hire a better lawyer than Joe Average. A lawyer that knows how to stall and delay because he knows that most people can't afford to go after an asshole and they'll have to cut their losses and give up, so you'll get away with only a lawyer's fee. Must be nice to be on that side of the equation. Most americans are not. BTW, it also doesn't really work with your health, does it? You can scam when its someone else's health but it's much harder to cheap the reaper. But who knows. Maybe you'll get lucky. Maybe you'll never get sick. Maybe you'll never get hit by some drunken asshole in a Beemer. Anything is possible.
no subject
Date: 2010-03-26 09:30 pm (UTC)I also find it odd that you insist that having car insurance is better than self insuring because if I self-insure the risk is all mine (you call that stupid)...but then refer to investment insurance claims as "hurts other people with investment insurance".
How do you reconcile those two? Is it hurting other people with insurance if I have insurance and make a claim against it...or is it stupid to be personally financially responsible and pay for my own damages out of my own pocket without help from anyone?
And if it weren't clear enough...all of your accusations are wrong.
If I am in an accident and I am at fault, I will pay for it out of my own finances.
If I am in an accident and someone else is at fault, I will pay for my damages out of my own finances in the short term, and then attempt to recover them from the at-fault party.
no subject
Date: 2010-03-25 12:36 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-03-25 03:08 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-03-25 03:40 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-03-24 03:06 pm (UTC)So it will also be legal for Barack Obama...as soon as he puts us all on the payroll.
Thank you!
Date: 2010-03-24 03:35 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-03-24 04:10 pm (UTC)Your interpretation would imply that the act envisioned putting the entire able-bodied male population from 18 to 45 on the government payroll equivalent to troops, which is absurd.
no subject
Date: 2010-03-24 06:03 pm (UTC)The act does not make any requirement of private citizens, only of those already conscripted into the militia.
So it passes Constitutional muster under Article II Section 2 under the authority as Commander in Chief "of the militia of the several states"
What Constitutional authority is Obama acting under?
no subject
Date: 2010-03-24 07:05 pm (UTC)Or at least, that's how I interpret it. Your interpretation may be different. I can't find where it says he is to enforce and execute the laws passed by Congress that's more specific that Article II, Section I, Clause 1.
no subject
Date: 2010-03-24 08:41 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-03-24 08:57 pm (UTC)Number 127
People used to say that about D.C. vs. Heller, too
Date: 2010-03-24 11:18 pm (UTC). png
no subject
Date: 2010-03-25 02:53 am (UTC)(The "organized militia" is the national guard, btw)
no subject
Date: 2010-03-24 03:06 pm (UTC)We'll see the form this all takes - it may be good or bad.
Is "legal" the word you want here?
Date: 2010-03-24 03:36 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-03-24 04:08 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-03-24 05:25 pm (UTC)But let's pretend that both exist for the 'common good' for a moment. Now ask this:
In the past year, how many americans have died from an invading army on US soil? How many have died due to diseases that were treatable if caught early?
Heck, why stop at the past year? Let's look at the entire history of the united states. More people have died from Influenza, Polio, Smallpox, mumps, and dysentery than have died in all the wars and police actions combined and that's without even bothering to count the indigenous people.
no subject
Date: 2010-03-24 11:06 pm (UTC)It's not that change isn't needed....it's that THIS law is a BAD law. It will not accomplish the change that is needed. The Patriot Act was the same situation in my opinion. A bad law got railroaded though on the momentum of "quickly, we must do something".
My prediction is that within the new few years the vast majority will look back at this law and ask how anyone in their right mind could have voted for it in the first place (just as most do with regards to the Patriot Act now). Members of Congress who fought long and hard for this law will be quoted saying "If I had realized the repercussions of the law I would never have supported it"
no subject
Date: 2010-03-24 11:40 pm (UTC)And your prediction? Uh. Duh. Politicians will say anything to get re-elected. Of course, they've extended and expanded upon the Patriot Act so perhaps there's yet hope that we'll get decent national healthcare now that there's a starting point. Wouldn't that be just awful!
no subject
Date: 2010-03-25 12:36 am (UTC)The Democrats can take pride in having passed the initial HRC bill, even with its imperfections. Tom Delay's GOP Congress ignored the problem for their entire tenure.
Re:
Date: 2010-03-25 01:01 am (UTC)Now that the bill is passed, most of the drama will slip off the screen. The american public's rage is notoriously short-lived. They'll be well on to railing about something else by then.
Of course, the economy is a huge factor. If employment numbers stay down, Republicans have better odds for success. If employment improves, they would normally be good and royally f***ed. Though the corporate campaign finance is definitely a wildcard. It will certainly be bad for some things (The marijuana legalization bills on a couple of state ballots, for instance. Prisons, police, alcohol distributors, and many others have a vested interest in barring passage of those bills whereas there's little corporate support on the other side) but at a political level, it's less clear. Not all corporations are bloody evil and it's difficult to put a price tag on the kind of value the right wing has been getting from FOX News and it's ilk in the form of propaganda as things stand so it may actually do a little to level the playing field, though I'm pretty skeptical this is a likely outcome and suspect it will probably skew heavily in favor of the Republicans. Time will tell though.
Re:
Date: 2010-03-25 04:09 pm (UTC)Side issue: I think the Tea Party will probably skew heavily GOP in '10, but after that its anyone's guess. Their bloodline is more in populist movements like Perot's than in either party, and they're probably going to be against the ruling party no matter who is in control. No surprise: they are a protest party at this point, they haven't had to grow into anything else yet.
Re:
Date: 2010-03-25 05:13 pm (UTC)On the other hand, I suspect that what's likely to happen is that 'Tea Party' is just slightly rebranded version of GOP much like the difference between a Ford and Lincoln. The Tea Party doesn't seem to really have any kind of coherent message that makes it stand out from the GOP. When I try to define what they're for or against, I can't find anything that makes them unique from the GOP.
I imagine they will continue on as a brand for a little bit but when they realize that having 'Democrat, Republican, and Tea Party' on the ballot is reducing their odds of getting their way, they'll be reabsorbed back into the Libertarians and the GOP. If nothing else, it will be interesting to watch.
Re:
Date: 2010-03-25 04:11 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-03-24 06:18 pm (UTC)According to "Jos. Gales, Debates and Proceedings in the Congress of the US (1834)", Congress seriously debated the legality of the militia acts requiring that persons pay for their arms themselves. They proposed, but did not pass, an amendment that would have had the government pay for the arms instead.
The matter appears to have been re-raised several times over the next 70 years and was finally changed in 1903.
So I'd say that it was far from clear that what Washington did was legal.
no subject
Date: 2010-03-24 07:45 pm (UTC)In fact, the only mention of constitutionality I can find with a quick search talks about whether it's a violation of religious freedom to require Quakers and conscientious objectors to purchase arms or pay a penalty.
Can you give a link to some specific quotes that show that the constitutionality of the individual mandates in the Militia Acts was ever in question?
Number 127
no subject
Date: 2010-03-24 11:13 pm (UTC)I'll try to get you page numbers and quotes later when I have time to run back over to the library and grab the book again. Availability shouldn't be a problem. (Though the fact that no one but me has asked for it in the last two years is a sad commentary in and of itself)
no subject
Date: 2010-03-26 09:22 pm (UTC)After reviewing a much larger section of the debate I'm forced to concede that it isn't clear whether the objections were due to practicality or legality.
Awesome irony here
Date: 2010-03-24 11:35 pm (UTC)But aside from that, the Constitution gives Congress the power to provide for the common defense of the United States, not for the individual health of US citizens. I hope we all agree that when militia members are obliged to provide their own equipment, it isn't for their personal benefit.
The reference to "general welfare" in Article 1, Section 8 can't be stretched that far; the document is clear on the difference between the republic and its people.
And I hope it's also obvious that our republic will not fall if we don't have socialized medicine, so even apart from the question of constitutionality, the circumstances of these two laws are worlds apart.
Elf's line of argument looks like one of those fallacies that arise when someone reaches a conclusion and then goes looking for a logical argument to support it. Not so good.
. png