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.
Service to the government? It says that if you're a white male, you have no choice
It's not people who choose to sign up- it declares every white male within a certain age range to be a member of a group that must make this purchase whether they want anything to do with it or not
Now... where is that in the constitution? There are two possibilities:
-The mandate is constitutional... somehow- as the FF clearly believed
-The constitution doesn't give the federal government this authority, and the Militia Act is unconstitutional- meaning the FF who wrote, argued for, and ratified it didn't even want to live under the constitution
I think you have a fairly strong argument on this JB... I was unaware of the Militia Act and what it said, but it seems to me, that it does set precedence with the federal government mandating citizens purchase something....
yes, M14 has an argument of this mandate being for something, the Defense of our country, which is in the Constitution, but it is a mandate for citizens to buy things from private retailers.
Actually the Floirida Judge that ruled obama care unconstitutional has more knownledge. But if thats how you want to go. The militia act was due to the second amendment. M14 Shooter has it just about right.
That's not true - the MA1792 is a prime example. The Federal government absolutealy has the power to require members of the miltia to purchase their own equipment.Well, our government IS trying to use the commerce clause, I believe, in defense of this.....
Our government CAN mandate that we purchase something, but it has been at the State level as of late, and NOT the Federal level...
Another example is the federal requirement that cargo handling companies - even those that don't actually physically touch the freight - can be forced to purchase cargo liability insurance.
As noted several times, however, the particulars of these requirements preclude them from supporting the idea that the federal government can create a blanket requirement of everyone to buy health insurance.
Service to the government? It says that if you're a white male, you have no choiceThe requirement to buy a musket and associated military equipment was in relation to a condition of service to the government, as prescribed by congress, pursuant to one of the powers specifically granted to it by the Constitution.
It's not people who choose to sign up- it declares every white male within a certain age range to be a member of a group that must make this purchase whether they want anything to do with it or not
Now... where is that in the constitution? There are two possibilities:
-The mandate is constitutional... somehow- as the FF clearly believed
-The constitution doesn't give the federal government this authority, and the Militia Act is unconstitutional- meaning the FF who wrote, argued for, and ratified it didn't even want to live under the constitution
I think you have a fairly strong argument on this JB... I was unaware of the Militia Act and what it said, but it seems to me, that it does set precedence with the federal government mandating citizens purchase something....
yes, M14 has an argument of this mandate being for something, the Defense of our country, which is in the Constitution, but it is a mandate for citizens to buy things from private retailers.
wow... just wow...So?It says that if you're a white male, you have no choice
Then the requirement to buy insurance is also now a part of that same service- to ensure the unorganized militias are fit to serve their country when called upon.You are serving in the militia. That's service to the government.
The requirement is a condition related to that service, pursuant to an enumerated power of Congress.
So it's wrong because blacks are covered?The Obana's HCI mandate, a blanket condition imposed upon everyone,
As opposed to citizenship and skin colourrelated to nothing other than their simple citizenship
No, it's not. What's evident is your programming.The distinction, and thus the difference, is readily apparent.
your view on good Samaritan laws and the death of kitty genovese?I -fully- support this - no one should be forced to provide goods and services of any kind to those that cannot pay for it, directly or indirectly. You should be free to choose to do so, but then you do so with the understanding that you may not receive any sort of compenation.Why is it I don't hear those who oppose being forced to purchase health insurance screaming about the fact that providers must treat people who don't have insurance?
Its not MY fault you failed to illustrate the enormity, say nothing of the relevance, of your statement.wow... just wow...So?It says that if you're a white male, you have no choice
If that were the -actual- requirement, you might have something.Then the requirement to buy insurance is also now a part of that same service- to ensure the unorganized militias are fit to serve their country when called upon.
There you have it- it's still constitutional pursuant to the enumerated powers of congress.
There you go - more ass-in-headery.So it's wrong because blacks are covered?
And moreso, your inability to coherently argue a point.No, it's not. What's evident is your programming.
What about them?your view on good Samaritan laws and the death of kitty genovese?I -fully- support this - no one should be forced to provide goods and services of any kind to those that cannot pay for it, directly or indirectly. You should be free to choose to do so, but then you do so with the understanding that you may not receive any sort of compenation.Why is it I don't hear those who oppose being forced to purchase health insurance screaming about the fact that providers must treat people who don't have insurance?
Yes. Among other things, it is meaningless to the issue, as the HCI mandate isn't associated with it in any way shape or form.Do you even know what the militia is?
What about them?your view on good Samaritan laws and the death of kitty genovese?I -fully- support this - no one should be forced to provide goods and services of any kind to those that cannot pay for it, directly or indirectly. You should be free to choose to do so, but then you do so with the understanding that you may not receive any sort of compenation.
Good Samaitan laws protect people from liability if they help out in an emergency and something goes wrong. Thus, while a perfectly good idea, these aren't relevant to what I said.
Kitty Genovese? While unfortunate, it is also irrelevant to what I said.
Why don't at least -try- to address what I said?
Yes. Among other things, it is meaningless to the issue, as the HCI mandate isn't associated with it in any way shape or form.Do you even know what the militia is?
So if only 'all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard. ' had to buy health insurance, we'd be all good?
Yes. Among other things, it is meaningless to the issue, as the HCI mandate isn't associated with it in any way shape or form.Do you even know what the militia is?
I personally don't care whether it's 'constitutional' or not. Hell, slavery was fucking constitutional. The bottom line is it is wrong, regardless of what the Constitution says.
I oppose the mandate on ethical/moral grounds- I don't give a damn what the constitution or the supreme court has to say about it.
I'm sorry - when did we start legislating morality?What about them?your view on good Samaritan laws and the death of kitty genovese?
Good Samaitan laws protect people from liability if they help out in an emergency and something goes wrong. Thus, while a perfectly good idea, these aren't relevant to what I said.
Kitty Genovese? While unfortunate, it is also irrelevant to what I said.
Why don't at least -try- to address what I said?
After Kitty died, it was made a law that you must contact police if you witness such a crime taking place.
Laws requiring the treating of uninsured patients are based on the same premise: mandating moral/ethical behavior and doing the right thing because it is the right thing to do
Answering your question and then pointing out that someting is irrelevant to something I said isn't evading, it's addressing thr question and then refusing to follow a red herring.you're evading againYes. Among other things, it is meaningless to the issue, as the HCI mandate isn't associated with it in any way shape or form.Do you even know what the militia is?
The specific power is:So if only 'all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section.... of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.' had to buy health insurance, we'd be all good?
The requirement of the militiaman to equip himself falls clearly under 'organizing' and 'arming' the militia.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...
Answering your question and then pointing out that someting is irrelevant to something I said isn't evading, it's addressing thr question and then refusing to follow a red herring.you're evading againYes. Among other things, it is meaningless to the issue, as the HCI mandate isn't associated with it in any way shape or form.
The specific power is:So if only 'all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section.... of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.' had to buy health insurance, we'd be all good?
The requirement of the militiaman to equip himself falls clearly under 'organizing' and 'arming' the militia. I'm not sure you could make an argument that requiring the memebers of the militia to also purchase HCI falls under 'organizing', 'arming' or 'disciplining', but if you want to give it a shot, I'll let you.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...
