Why Congress May Lawfully Require Citizens to Buy Guns & Ammunition, But Not To Submit To Obamacare

Freedom Outpost ^ | February 10, 2013 | Publius Huldah

[2ndDivisionVet]

Harvard Law School was embarrassed recently when one of its graduates, the putative President of the United States, demonstrated that he was unaware that the supreme Court has constitutional authority to declare an act of Congress unconstitutional.

And after reading a recent paper by Harvard law professor Einer Elhauge, one wonders whether the academic standards (or is it the moral standards?) of that once great school have collapsed.

Professor Elhauge says in “If Health Insurance Mandates Are Unconstitutional, Why Did the Founding Fathers Back Them?” (The New Republic, April 13, 2012), that Congress may force us to buy health insurance because in 1792, our Framers required all male citizens to buy guns; and in 1798 required ship owners using U.S. ports (dock-Yards) to pay a fee to the federal government in order to fund hospitals for sick or disabled seamen at the U.S. ports.

Oh! What tangled webs are woven when law professors write about Our Constitution!

I have already proved that Art. I, Sec. 8, next to last clause (which grants to Congress “exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever” over dock-Yards and the other federal enclaves) is what authorizes Congress to assess the fee from ship owners who use the federal dock-Yards. See: Merchant Seamen in 1798, Health Care on Federal Enclaves, and Really Silly Journalists.

Now I will show you where the Constitution grants authority to Congress to require adult citizens to get armed!(continued)

[2ndDivisionVet]

What say you?

[Vendome]

Uhmmmmmm....

FO?!!

[Doug Loss]

the supreme Court has constitutional authority to declare an act of Congress unconstitutional.

The Supreme Court has no such constitutional authority. It had such authority through arrogation by John Marshall in the case of Marbury vs. Madison in 1803, which is generally accepted but is certainly not overtly granted by the Constitution. If this is an example of the writer's understanding of the issue it calls into question the rest of his essay (I haven't had a chance to read it yet).

[freekitty]

Did Obama actually go to Harvard much less any other school in the US?

[LyinLibs]

0bama’s only legitimate credential is his PhD in Larry Sinclair Genitalia.

[ronnie raygun]

The affirmative action president sez he was a an affirmative action student at Harvard. Isnt affirmative action grand? Wouldn’t you feel comfortable knowing the mechanic that fixed your plane that you are putting your family on got his position because of the color of his skin and not the knowledge required to fix the plane. uncomfortingly sick!

[TRY ONE]

Jesus told His 12 Disciples to get Weapons [Swords] for Self-Protection.

At the end of His Last Supper with them – the day before His crucifixion - Jesus told the disciples to carry a weapon for self-defense. Two of the disciples were already carrying swords that evening. He knew that in the future there would be threats against their safety so he wanted them to be visibly “armed.”

Luke 22: 35-38 - NKJV

Supplies for Ministry:

35 And He said to them, “When I sent you without money bag, knapsack, and sandals, did you lack anything?”

So they said, “Nothing.”

36 Then He said to them, “But now, he who has a money bag, let him take it, and likewise a knapsack; and he who has no sword, let him sell his garment and buy one. 37 For I say to you that this which is written must still be accomplished in Me: ‘And He was numbered with the transgressors.’ “For the things concerning Me have an end.”

38 So they said, “Lord, look, here are two swords.”

[freekitty]

I agree

[MamaTexan]

The Supreme Court has no such constitutional authority.

Yes, it does.

However true, therefore, it may be, that the judicial department is, in all questions submitted to it by the forms of the Constitution, to decide in the last resort, this resort must necessarily be deemed the last in relation to the authorities of the other departments of the government; not in relation to the rights of the parties to the constitutional compact, from which the judicial, as well as the other departments, hold their delegated trusts. On any other hypothesis, the delegation of judicial power would annul the authority delegating it; and the concurrence of this department with the others in usurped powers, might subvert forever, and beyond the possible reach of any rightful remedy, the very Constitution which all were instituted to preserve.
James Madison, Report on the Virginia Resolutions

The case of Marbury vs. Madison fell squarely within this authority since it was a case that concerned the executive and judicial branches of the general government.

[Doug Loss]

First, Madison's opinion here is not part of the Constitution. Now that that's out of the way, you misunderstand what he wrote anyway. He said, "in all questions submitted to it by the forms of the Constitution." This means in all things the Constitution says in in the purview of the Supreme Court. It quite specifically doesn't say that ruling on the constitutionality of legislation is within that purview. What Madison says here is that the Supreme Court's rulings can't be overturned at the whims of the Executive or the Legislative branches. If you read the proceedings of the Constitutional Convention, you'll see that the Founders debated whether to give the Supreme Court authority to rule over the constitutionality of legislation and rejected that idea. Marshall usurped that authority anyway and no one stopped him or the succeeding Courts.

[MamaTexan]

First, Madison's opinion here is not part of the Constitution.

Neither is Marbury vs Madison.

Madison's 'opinion' came from an official writing in his capacity as a member of the House and in response to a legal petition from the States of Virgina and Kentucky, not was it only HIS opinion, as the entire House of Representatives concurred.

-----

Now that that's out of the way, you misunderstand what he wrote anyway.

Excuse me, but do not be so arrogant as to presume to tell me something means something other than what it plainly says.

Now that we have that out of the way, what Madison wrote did NOT say 'that the Supreme Court's rulings can't be overturned at the whims of the Executive or the Legislative branches.', he specifically said-

this resort must necessarily be deemed the last in relation to the authorities of the other departments of the government;

Which MEANS the federal judiciary is the authority for judging the constitutionality of the actions of the other branches of the federal government.

-----

If you read the proceedings of the Constitutional Convention

Been there, done that.

-----

Marshall usurped that authority anyway

Marshall usurped nothing. If you feel otherwise, would you care to give me direct quote from that decision in support of your conclusion, or are spouting baseless generalities more your cup of tea?

[Doug Loss]

If you wish to be insulting, go do it with someone else. You clearly don’t understand what you read, and are arrogant about it to boot. I’m done with you; learn to read for content, then come back when you understand what you read.

[MamaTexan]

Perhaps you should invest in a mirror.