If Health Insurance Mandates Are Unconstitutional, Why Did the Founding Fathers Back Them?
 

In making the legal case against Obamacare?s individual mandate, challengers have argued that the framers of our Constitution would certainly have found such a measure to be unconstitutional. Nevermind that nothing in the text or history of the Constitution?s Commerce Clause indicates that Congress cannot mandate commercial purchases. The framers, challengers have claimed, thought a constitutional ban on purchase mandates was too ?obvious? to mention. Their core basis for this claim is that purchase mandates are unprecedented, which they say would not be the case if it was understood this power existed.

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.

That?s not all. In 1792, a Congress with 17 framers passed another statute that required all able-bodied men to buy firearms. Yes, we used to have not only a right to bear arms, but a federal duty to buy them. Four framers voted against this bill, but the others did not, and it was also signed by Washington. Some tried to repeal this gun purchase mandate on the grounds it was too onerous, but only one framer voted to repeal it.

Six years later, in 1798, Congress addressed the problem that the employer mandate to buy medical insurance for seamen covered drugs and physician services but not hospital stays. And you know what this Congress, with five framers serving in it, did? It enacted a federal law requiring the seamen to buy hospital insurance for themselves. That?s right, Congress enacted an individual mandate requiring the purchase of health insurance. And this act was signed by another founder, President John Adams.

Not only did most framers support these federal mandates to buy firearms and health insurance, but there is no evidence that any of the few framers who voted against these mandates ever objected on constitutional grounds. Presumably one would have done so if there was some unstated original understanding that such federal mandates were unconstitutional. Moreover, no one thought these past purchase mandates were problematic enough to challenge legally.

http://www.tnr.com/article/politics/...dable-care-act

The Constitution gives the federal government seventeen specific powers and reserves all other power to the states and the people. Of the seventeen powers the feds have, three relate to regulating the seas, so clearly the founders intended for the federal government to regulate the seas. Another of the seventeen is regulating interstate commerce. Thus it was proper for them to regulate merchant shipping in interstate commerce. That's one of the few things the founders intended the feds to do.


Six of the seventeen powers mention raising and organizing the militia, so again having men competent with arms is clearly one of the few things the Constitution authorizes the federal government to do.

Where in the constitution do you see "make people buy health insurance"? It's not there. The court's decision says they labored to to find some way, ANY way, to upload the law, and the only way they could find to do so was by dating the mandate isn't a mandate, but a tax. That posed a couple of other problems because it would have been an ILLEGAL tax, so in the first few pages they ruled that it's NOT a tax, then ruled that it is, kind of. That's the only way the Supremes found that it could be constitutional, by ruling that:
the mandate isn't a mandate
it's not a tax
it's a tax

That must have been hard, if the best they could come up with is "it's not a tax but it's a tax".

Btw, your "facts" are a little off as well. Your "mandatory health insurance" for seamen is more like an on-board first aid kit. The wording of the law is "a chest of medicines".

http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage....db&recNum=257

smoke weed every day

:thumbsup:thumbsup

Even if it is a tax, who gives a shit? You pay taxes for police protection. You pay taxes for fire protection. Now you pay a tax to ensure you get health protection.


Apparently not that hard.:winkwink:



Which is the equivalent of medical coverage in the eighteenth century.

Notice that all of the other things you mentioned are handled by the authority that can constitutionally do so - the states? Good idea or bad idea, that's the Constitution. Start ignoring it at your peril. Note also that none of them force you to buy something from a private company? If you want the national government to tell you that you must buy brocolli, you'd probably enjoy living in Iran.


If you can't tell the difference between a first aid kit and health insurance, I have some health insurance to sell you - only $50 per month.


Aside from the fact that the power to regulate the seas and the power to regulate intestate commerce clearly includes regulations saying that ships engaged in such commerce should carry a first aid kit.

You seem to be confusing "I wouldn't mind if the Constitution said ..." with "the Constitution does say ...". The Constitution is only a few pages, read it. Then you can talk about what it says, rather then pretending it says whatever seems okay at the moment.