Political: This one is for all the Vine legal scholars...individual mandate edition.
"But there’s a major problem with this line of argument: It just isn’t true. The founding fathers, it turns out, passed several mandates of their own. In 1790, the very first Congress—which incidentally included 20 framers—passed a law that included a mandate: namely, a requirement that ship owners buy medical insurance for their seamen. This law was then signed by another framer: President George Washington. That’s right, the father of our country had no difficulty imposing a health insurance mandate."
by That's funny! April 16, 2012 2:24 PM
They also believed in fairies and trolls and would stake their very lives against dragons.
Constitutionalists are as bad as radical Muslims about living in the past.
by turdly April 16, 2012 2:39 PM
TF do you believe anything that the New Republic prints?
You should be more careful which talking points you try and spew.
I know you don't mind looking like an idiot but it is getting embarrassing seeing you act so vapid.
by Insert clever name here April 16, 2012 3:21 PM
Speaking of your "source" I like the headline "A Surprisingly Effective New Path to Neutralizing the Political Influence of Big Business"
Since your wonderful Messiah is nothing but a stooge of big business I guess the author is saying how to defeat President Zero.
Bunch of morons.
by Insert clever name here April 16, 2012 3:26 PM
Really? So the mandates referred to in the article never happened?
Conservative: "If I read or hear something uncomfortable I dismiss it as propaganda. If that doesn't work I'll just ignore it. Because nobody can make me leave my reality."
by That's funny! April 16, 2012 3:34 PM
I suspect that, if these issues are on point, that the incredibly gifted Constitutional Law Professor who currently occupies the White House made sure that his Justice Department referred to these in the briefs they filed in support of the mandate. If so, then the SCOTUS has this information and can make their determination if it is relevant and applicable. If not, then the scholars at the White House and DOJ must have already determined the relevancy or lack thereof.
by adelphos April 16, 2012 3:43 PM
YATI: The GOVERNMENT mandated that those owners provide health care coverage.
Conservatives like to argue that requiring an individual mandate is unprecedented and unconstitutional.
What didn't the framers of the constitution and George Washington know about the constitution that you and other conservatives apparently know?
by That's funny! April 16, 2012 3:43 PM
30 legal seaman vs 30 milion illegals
sounds equal,or not?
by dblbogey2 April 16, 2012 3:49 PM
adelphos: No need. Scalia is an originalist. He supposedly woud already know this stuff.
I'm sure as the preeminent activist/hypocritical judge, he could find the framer's mandates unconstitutional and "unoriginal."
by That's funny! April 16, 2012 3:51 PM
Congress did not actually mandate that ship owners provide health insurance. They imposed a 20 cent per month tax on seamen’s wages. That revenue was used to fund medical care for seamen. No one was required to buy anything. Congress had the power to impose taxes, not to compel purchases.
by Climate Change is 4 Nincompoops April 16, 2012 3:54 PM
TF, The New Republic is famous for altering, distorting and making up "facts".
As are most leftists such as you.
I wouldn't want to spend the time trying to verify anything they print or anything you say for that matter.
by Insert clever name here April 16, 2012 3:57 PM
Did Climate Change just hand you your ass?"
Of course not. Why would you get that idea?
The guy's gun argument makes no sense. A mandate is a mandate whatever the reason.
And with his medical insurance argument he concedes the ship owners and seaman were engaged in Commerce and could thus be regulated accordingly. SO where's the issue.
The point is that mandates are hardly unprecedented. The framer's had no issue with mandates. They had no issue with requiring seaman to purchase hospital coverage.
Yes or no. Would conservative LOs bitch if Obama required all loan officers to buy hospitalization insurance?
by That's funny! April 16, 2012 4:18 PM
Congress required a business, in this case, ship owners, to provide insurance.
That congress did not pass an "individual mandate" requiring private citizens to
More intellectual dishonest brought to you
be That's False!
by Capitalist Pig April 16, 2012 4:35 PM
Keep spinning away Anchostooge. Your socialist wet dream is going down.
But keep up the good work. The world needs useful idiots too.
by ConservativeMe April 16, 2012 6:19 PM
CPig:They required the seaman to also pay for hospitalization.
You guys are a hoot.
by That's funny! April 16, 2012 9:00 PM
Yes, TF, and the seaman also has the right not to join the crew.
I know you are having to reach farther and farther for your straws, but you do realize the difference between a mandate for a hazardous occupation that one elects to participate in and a mandate on every citizen simply because they are alive.
This goes back to the left's foolish argument that mandatory health insurance is the same as mandatory auto insurance.
You have the right not to participate. Not the case with Obamacare, either participate or be penalized.
Then again, you're so deep into the koolaid you're well past reason, so you probably don't see the difference.
The hoot's all you.
by Capitalist Pig April 17, 2012 10:10 AM