Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

http://www.minnpost.com

Some are saying mandatory health insurance is law as evidenced by this law.

1 posted on 04/15/2012 7:26:01 PM PDT by Bronzy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies ]


To: Bronzy

Militia powers are enumerated. See Article 1 Section 8 and the 2nd Amendment. Nothing in the Constitution about buying insurance for health care or otherwise. Not much about a number of things the gov does today, which are unconstitutional as all get out. And the “general welfare” clause the commies like to drag out, doesn’t mean what they attempt to infer it does. Madison and others of the founding generation interpreted it to mean limited and enumerated powers, not the leviathan that the Supes have created since the 1930s.


2 posted on 04/15/2012 7:36:27 PM PDT by RKV (He who has the guns makes the rules)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Bronzy
I am not a Constitutional Law Instructor (nor am I a community organizer), however it is my understanding that the Constitution authorizes the Federal Government:

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

So, organizing the militia is specifically authorized, however it does not authorize the Federal Government to require all citizens to buy health insurance.

4 posted on 04/15/2012 7:39:38 PM PDT by Zeppo ("Happy Pony is on - and I'm NOT missing Happy Pony")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Bronzy

The military body was defined, then given orders (to wit “a well regulated militia...” and “power to call out the militia...”).
That is quite different from ordering private purchase of an unwanted service (to wit “creating commerce to regulate it”).


5 posted on 04/15/2012 7:40:16 PM PDT by ctdonath2 ($1 meals: http://abuckaplate.blogspot.com/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Bronzy

That law is racist, sexist, and ageist, and there is no way it would be allowed to pass or pass scrutiny today.

Why come only young white males have to have a gun?

So they can just shoot happy go lucky skittlers any time they want to right?


6 posted on 04/15/2012 7:41:15 PM PDT by chris37 (Heartless.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Bronzy

Today we would just draft people, if needed. We would not require gun purchases because the Army is well stocked and our transit system cab quickly move munitions to where they are needed. Back then, this was not the case, which justified the government imposing this in order to fulfill its duties under Article I


8 posted on 04/15/2012 7:55:42 PM PDT by zencycler
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Bronzy

Gun ownership => Longer and healthier life


12 posted on 04/15/2012 8:13:01 PM PDT by Ken H (Austerity is the irresistible force. Entitlements are the immovable object.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Bronzy
So, using their "logic" in which the "every free able-bodied white male citizen" ages 18 through 44 to be enrolled in a state militia" allegedly proves that interpretation of such laws (Second Militia Act of 1792) can go beyond their original intent then so can the actual Constitution itself.

Here is the law that is being referred to.

Second Militia Act of 1792

The second Act, passed May 8, 1792, provided for the organization of the state militias. It conscripted every "free able-bodied white male citizen" between the ages of 18 and 45 into a local militia company overseen by the state. Militia members were to arm themselves with a musket, bayonet and belt, two spare flints, a cartridge box with 24 bullets, and a knapsack. Men owning rifles were required to provide a powder horn, 1/4 pound of gun powder, 20 rifle balls, a shooting pouch, and a knapsack.

Ok, but the Constitution goes beyond that with Art. 1, Sec. 8.

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

So, according to the Second Militia Act of 1792, the individual is instructed to "arm themselves with a musket, bayonet and belt."

It does not say how.

Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution clearly says "To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia...



So, time for all the congress critters to cut the crap.

I want my,

I want my,





I want my M-16






.
14 posted on 04/15/2012 8:35:55 PM PDT by TLI ( ITINERIS IMPENDEO VALHALLA)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Bronzy

Once we’re pinned down with 0bamascare, they’ll have to go for the guns because that will be detrimental to everyones health in their eyes.

Believe me, they are coming!


17 posted on 04/15/2012 8:42:57 PM PDT by TribalPrincess2U (Anyone not wanting an ID or purple thumb to vote isn't worthy of voting privilege.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Bronzy

This is to all reading and posting to this article.

“A 1792 federal law called for “every free able-bodied white male citizen” ages 18 through 44 to be enrolled in a state militia and to “provide himself with a good musket or firelock,” along with a bayonet and ammunition.”

This law does not state that other citizens,old or young, male or female,nor of any race, creed or culture may not arm themselves in the same fashion as those mentioned in the law.
It only states that those described in the law, “able-bodied white male citizens ages 18 through 44” should be compelled to do so.
There is no discrimination made, implied or inferred here.

Remember your history please, a person 44 years of age at that time was considered an elderly person.

Thankyou for hearing me.


19 posted on 04/15/2012 9:50:06 PM PDT by RAWGUY
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Bronzy

You’ll love this:

Guns in America
http://legallyeasy.rocketlawyer.com/guns-in-america-94909


24 posted on 04/16/2012 12:15:17 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet (Ich habe keinen Konig aber Gott)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson