Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Yawn.No you did not but keep pretending that you did if that makes you feel better. LOLOn the contrary - I did describe how he is wrong.Did you also happen to notice that he cotinues to claim that you are wrong even as he fails to show anything that supports that position??
He continues to fail to address this.
...not in any meaningful manner that has not been sufficiently addressed.Fact is that your opinions have been responded to...
Every other industrialized nation also limits free speech, should we imitate that also?
Yes...Ah. The Merhcant Seamen Health Care requirement.The federal government - the one run by our founders - mandated health insurance for private employees....well over 200 years ago. I think the founders knew a bit about what the founders believed.
This was set as a condition of engaging in commerce. In that, it is no different that requiring freight companies to carry liabilty insurance. Neither are an example of a blanket requirement created by the condition od simple citizenship.
As such, your example is meaningless.
It was a condition of employment for the people working - it was the government telling the people that they must purchase "x".
Not the Federal Government. But then you lefties seem to forget that we are a federal Republic with a division of Power between the Fed and the Many States.
And what you seem to not understand is that the hyper restrictive view you take on the federal government's powers under the constitution is not true. If it were, then the very fabric of the Union would deteriorate.
This is silly.Take the Air Force for an example. Nothing listed in the constitution about that and yet the right takes a broad interpretation of the constitution to a claim that is ok.
You are either not paying attention, or you have no ability to comprehend what you aread, you're simply trolling. My money is on all three.What you fail to understand is deciding an action does not violate The US Constitution is not the same as saying that the action is limited only to states.What you fail to understand is deciding an action by a state does not violate someone's rights s not the same as saying that the federal government has the power to engage in that same act.
Your argument to that effect is a non sequitur.
Your argument to that effect is a non sequitur.
To support the idea that the federal government has the power to require vaccinations, you presented a court decision that says a state requirement to that effect does not violate any of the rights protected by the US constitution. The citation of this case does not support your premise because:
1- A state having the power to do this in no way means the federal government has that power, as state powers are define by state constitutions, while federal powers are defined by the US constitution
2- That an action taken by s state does not violate the US constitution does not at all necessarily mean that if the federal governmen ttakes that same action, it will also not violate the US Constitution, as the federal government has different restriction that tne states in this regard - specifcally, the federal governmt can violate the 10th amendment, and states cannot.
Thus, your argument fails and your premise remains unsupported.
But the liberty secured by the Constitution of the United States to every person within its jurisdiction does not import an absolute right in each person to be, at all times and in all circumstances, wholly freed from restraint. There are manifold restraints to which every person is necessarily subject for the common good.
If you agree that the government has the power to create The Obama's health care insurance mandate, then there's no way for you to argue that the government does not also have the power to require you to buy a gun.So oppressive government is fine, depending on which flag they operate under?
So much for principles.
You bore me.You are either not paying attention, or you have no ability to comprehend what you aread, you're simply trolling. My money is on all three.What you fail to understand is deciding an action does not violate The US Constitution is not the same as saying that the action is limited only to states.
Your argument to that effect is a non sequitur.
To support the idea that the federal government has the power to require vaccinations, you presented a court decision that says a state requirement to that effect does not violate any of the rights protected by the US constitution. The citation of this case does not support your premise because:
1- A state having the power to do this in no way means the federal government has that power, as state powers are define by state constitutions, while federal powers are defined by the US constitution
2- That an action taken by s state does not violate the US constitution does not at all necessarily mean that if the federal governmen ttakes that same action, it will also not violate the US Constitution, as the federal government has different restriction that tne states in this regard - specifcally, the federal governmt can violate the 10th amendment, and states cannot.
Thus, your argument fails and your premise remains unsupported.
You really should go back and read the decision. It does not limit the decision to the state as you are falsely trying to claim. It clearly talks about the common good and if you could read instead of editing and omitting the aprts of posts that counter your spin and IF you were honest you would have to admit that you are WRONG.
Said the petulant child with no means to create an otherwise effective or meaningful response.You're fucking retarded.Awww, skippy....
You're confusing two seperate things.
Background checks? Unconstitutional. Said that a zillion times.
The prohibition against felons owning guns? Constitutional. Never have I said otherwise.
Arguing against the consitutionality of background checks in no way equates to an argument against the constitutionality of the prohibiliton against felons owning guns.
Seperate issues, sport.
I laugh at you. Ha.
No...If the prohibition of felons owning guns is constitutional then the enforcement is constitutional; a background check is an enforcement.
An arrest, triail, conviction and imprisonment after the comission of a crime is enforcement. All of these are constitutional.
A background check is a pre-emtpion - it happens -before- the crime. This is not.
And so, you have faled to show that I hold the belief that the prohibition against felons having guns is unconstitutional. Just as I said you would.
I, again, laugh at you. Ha.
It's a mystery to YOU because you don't understand the subjectBTW, it has nothing to do with 'prior restraint' where you got that is a mystery.
Yes - the one where you were talking out of your ignorant arse because the law specifically excludes these people from the requirement.Awww, skippy....
You're confusing two seperate things.
Background checks? Unconstitutional. Said that a zillion times.
The prohibition against felons owning guns? Constitutional. Never have I said otherwise.
Arguing against the consitutionality of background checks in no way equates to an argument against the constitutionality of the prohibiliton against felons owning guns.
Seperate issues, sport.
I laugh at you. Ha.
Back to my other point, where I said by your logic this SD law would require felons to own guns.
Irrelevant. The law, contrary to yourwillfully ignorant claim, does --not-- require felons to own guns.How would they disqualify felons if they could not do a background check on them to see if they WERE felons?
Said the petulant child with no means to create an otherwise effective or meaningful response.
This is, quite surprisinly, true - a state may very well have a power to require the population in general to purchase certain goods/services, whereas the federal government has none. But, that's not a point you want to consider, and certainly doesnt counter what I said.If you agree that the government has the power to create The Obama's health care insurance mandate, then there's no way for you to argue that the government does not also have the power to require you to buy a gun.So oppressive government is fine, depending on which flag they operate under?
So much for principles.
Based on how the right in this very thread is arguing that the state and federal government are different then yes one can argue that there is a difference between the two and you morons on the right laid the ground work for any such arguments. GJ. LOL
You misst the point. Willfully, I suppose.How can you honestly argue that they are different and then try to claim that they are the same? I already asked you this once before but you ignored it. Imagine that.
Because you apparently failed to read this when originally posted:Said the petulant child with no means to create an otherwise effective or meaningful response.You're fucking retarded.
No...
An arrest, triail, conviction and imprisonment after the comission of a crime is enforcement. All of these are constitutional.
A background check is a pre-emtpion - it happens -before- the crime. This is not.
And so, you have faled to show that I hold the belief that the prohibition against felons having guns is unconstitutional. Just as I said you would.
I, again, laugh at you. Ha.
It's a mystery to YOU because you don't understand the subjectBTW, it has nothing to do with 'prior restraint' where you got that is a mystery.
So you don't consider the enforcement of the restriction against felons owning a firearm an enforcement issue?? REALLY?? LOL
One, as a matter of course, does not address the irrlevant.Yet another instance of you running away from an argument instead of actually addressing it.Irrelevant. The law, contrary to yourwillfully ignorant claim, does --not-- require felons to own guns.
Background checks are a form of prior restraint in that you are prevented, in advance, from exercising your right on the basis that you may be comitting a crime, rather than made answerable after you commit an illegal act.I support Gun ownership. I support background checks.
Prior restraint is an infringement.
Ergo, the law in the OP is constitutionalThe Militia Act of 1792
I. 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 (except as is herein after excepted) shall severally and respectively be enrolled in the militia, by the Captain or Commanding Officer of the company, within whose bounds such citizen shall reside, and that within twelve months after the passing of this Act. And it shall at all time hereafter be the duty of every such Captain or Commanding Officer of a company, to enroll every such citizen as aforesaid, and also those who shall, from time to time, arrive at the age of 18 years, or being at the age of 18 years, and under the age of 45 years (except as before excepted) shall come to reside within his bounds; and shall without delay notify such citizen of the said enrollment, by the proper non-commissioned Officer of the company, by whom such notice may be proved. That every citizen, so enrolled and notified, shall, within six months thereafter, 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; and shall appear so armed, accoutred and provided, when called out to exercise or into service, except, that when called out on company days to exercise only, he may appear without a knapsack. That the commissioned Officers shall severally be armed with a sword or hanger, and espontoon; and that from and after five years from the passing of this Act, all muskets from arming the militia as is herein required, shall be of bores sufficient for balls of the eighteenth part of a pound; and every citizen so enrolled, and providing himself with the arms, ammunition and accoutrements, required as aforesaid, shall hold the same exempted from all suits, distresses, executions or sales, for debt or for the payment of taxes.
And if they would have had selective fire weapons back then they would have required every citizens to have one.
Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U.S.
We come, then, to inquire whether any right given or secured by the Constitution is invaded by the statute as interpreted by the state court. The defendant insists that his liberty is invaded when the state subjects him to fine or imprisonment for neglecting or refusing to submit to vaccination; that a compulsory vaccination law is unreasonable, arbitrary, and oppressive, and, therefore, hostile to the inherent right of every freeman to care for his own body and health in such way as to him seems best; and that the execution of such a law against one who objects to vaccination, no matter for what reason, is nothing short of an assault upon his person. But the liberty secured by the Constitution of the United States to every person within its jurisdiction does not import an absolute right in each person to be, at all times and in all circumstances, wholly freed from restraint. There are manifold restraints to which every person is necessarily subject for the common good. On any other basis organized society could not exist with safety to its members. Society based on the rule that each one is a law unto himself would soon be confronted with disorder and anarchy. Real liberty for all could not exist under the operation of a principle which recognizes the right of each individual person to use his own, whether in respect of his person or his property, regardless of the injury that may be done to others. This court has more than once recognized it as a fundamental principle that 'persons and property are subjected to all kinds of restraints and burdens in order to secure the general comfort, health, and prosperity of the state; of the perfect right of the legislature to do which no question ever was, or upon acknowledged general principles ever can be, made, so far as natural persons are concerned.' Hannibal & St. J. R. Co. v. Husen, 95 U. S. 465, 471, 24 L. ed. 527, 530; Missouri, K. & T. R. Co. v. Haber, 169 U. S. 613, 628, 629, 42 L. ed. 878-883, 18 Sup. Ct. Rep. 488; Thorpe v. Rutland & B. R. Co. 27 Vt. 148, 62 Am. Dec. 625. In Crowley v. Christensen, 137 U. S. 86, 89, 34 L. ed. 620, 621, 11 Sup. Ct. Rep. 13, we said: 'The possession and enjoyment of all rights are subject to such reasonable conditions as may be deemed by the governing authority of the country essential to the safety, health, peace, good order, and morals of the community. Even liberty itself, the greatest of all rights, is not unrestricted license to act according to one's own will. It is only freedom from restraint under conditions essential to the equal enjoyment of the same right by others. It is, then, liberty regulated by law.
The fact that you need to stoop to your arrogant condescension just shows that you believe you can't argue solely on the facts. CON$ like to act like they are the only people smart enough to read. They are smarter than everyone else who doesn't agree with them. They know better than everyone else.You are either not paying attention, or you have no ability to comprehend what you aread, you're simply trolling. My money is on all three.What you fail to understand is deciding an action does not violate The US Constitution is not the same as saying that the action is limited only to states.What you fail to understand is deciding an action by a state does not violate someone's rights s not the same as saying that the federal government has the power to engage in that same act.
Your argument to that effect is a non sequitur.
Your argument to that effect is a non sequitur.
To support the idea that the federal government has the power to require vaccinations, you presented a court decision that says a state requirement to that effect does not violate any of the rights protected by the US constitution. The citation of this case does not support your premise because:
1- A state having the power to do this in no way means the federal government has that power, as state powers are define by state constitutions, while federal powers are defined by the US constitution
2- That an action taken by s state does not violate the US constitution does not at all necessarily mean that if the federal governmen ttakes that same action, it will also not violate the US Constitution, as the federal government has different restriction that tne states in this regard - specifcally, the federal governmt can violate the 10th amendment, and states cannot.
Thus, your argument fails and your premise remains unsupported.
When was this?The federal government - the one run by our founders - mandated health insurance for private employees....well over 200 years ago.
I'm sorryAgain:
Feel free to show how these decisions are unsound.
See the opposing postion and the fact that scalia had to rephrase the amendment to suit his desired interpretation is an example of how his opinion is unsound. Funny how you edited that out of my post when you quoted it.
The Militia Act of 1792
I. 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 (except as is herein after excepted) shall severally and respectively be enrolled in the militia, by the Captain or Commanding Officer of the company, within whose bounds such citizen shall reside, and that within twelve months after the passing of this Act. And it shall at all time hereafter be the duty of every such Captain or Commanding Officer of a company, to enroll every such citizen as aforesaid, and also those who shall, from time to time, arrive at the age of 18 years, or being at the age of 18 years, and under the age of 45 years (except as before excepted) shall come to reside within his bounds; and shall without delay notify such citizen of the said enrollment, by the proper non-commissioned Officer of the company, by whom such notice may be proved. That every citizen, so enrolled and notified, shall, within six months thereafter, 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; and shall appear so armed, accoutred and provided, when called out to exercise or into service, except, that when called out on company days to exercise only, he may appear without a knapsack. That the commissioned Officers shall severally be armed with a sword or hanger, and espontoon; and that from and after five years from the passing of this Act, all muskets from arming the militia as is herein required, shall be of bores sufficient for balls of the eighteenth part of a pound; and every citizen so enrolled, and providing himself with the arms, ammunition and accoutrements, required as aforesaid, shall hold the same exempted from all suits, distresses, executions or sales, for debt or for the payment of taxes.
We are not living in 1792.
Ergo, the law in the OP is constitutional
And if they would have had selective fire weapons back then they would have required every citizens to have one.
as is the HRC's individual mandate
unless we accept that the Militia Act in unconstitutional and the people who wrote, signed, and ratified COTUS didn't even want to live under it- which raises the question of why the hell we should be expected to.
