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}
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