Yes, the individual mandate is legal...

[elfs]

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.

Comments

[wendor.livejournal.com]

Ok, took a little longer to research than I thought.

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.

[(Anonymous)]

I read excerpts from the debate on whether individuals or the state should provide the militia's arms, and I don't see any discussions of legality, just practicality. In other words, they were debating whether it was a dick move, not whether it was constitutional.

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

[wendor.livejournal.com]

No problem. Was in a hurry earlier and didn't have time to transcribe all I would have liked to.

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)

[wendor.livejournal.com]

Ok, had some emergencies come up and it took me longer than expected to get back to the library.

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.