Yahoo Clever wird am 4. Mai 2021 (Eastern Time, Zeitzone US-Ostküste) eingestellt. Ab dem 20. April 2021 (Eastern Time) ist die Website von Yahoo Clever nur noch im reinen Lesemodus verfügbar. Andere Yahoo Produkte oder Dienste oder Ihr Yahoo Account sind von diesen Änderungen nicht betroffen. Auf dieser Hilfeseite finden Sie weitere Informationen zur Einstellung von Yahoo Clever und dazu, wie Sie Ihre Daten herunterladen.
Did you know in 1792 there was mandate that required men to buy a product at their own expense?
"President George Washington signed the Second Militia Act of 1792, which required a significant percentage of the U.S. civilian population to purchase—at their own expense—“a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack” along with various other items they would need if the president ever called them up to serve in the militia. Many of the members of Congress who voted to enact this law were also members of the Philadelphia Convention that wrote the Constitution itself." If that was constitutional, surely Affordable Care Act is constitutional because the law requires everyone to buy a product.
The Militia Act has nothing to do with 2nd Amendment. The Act was created to enforce Article 2, section 2, paragraph 1 of the Federal Constitution. The Affordable Care Act follows from the section on the regulation of interstate commerce. Congress has all the authority to enact laws to make that regulation effective. The Affordable Care Act fixes problems in the health care market whose participants are located in different states.
Slavery was made unconstitutional by the 13th Admendent. The Milita Act was never declared unconstitutional. According to the Slate article, it was ineffective because the Federal government never set effective standards. The Affordable Care Act does not have that problem.
17 Antworten
- Bot JohnsonLv 7vor 1 JahrzehntBeste Antwort
Apples and Oranges. That was in regards to national defense, especially considering the fact that we had just won our independence, and had a very small regular army at that time...the state militias, composed mostly of average working men, needed to have firearms in case they were called up for duty. Today, we have the National Guard and the Army Reserve, so this really has no modern day comparison. In times where there is a great need of heightened national defense, such as when martial law is declared, many strange and different requirements can legally be made by the government. This was to protect our nation. This is in no way comparable to the government forcing someone to buy health insurance. Nice try, though.
- 20/20Lv 6vor 1 Jahrzehnt
Apples & oranges. You're comparing that to having the feds require a citizen to purchase a state regulated product based on the need to satisfy the individual --- when the militia was a preparatory federal call to arms against a possible foreign invader which was meant to satisfy the government?
- Kchess07Lv 7vor 1 Jahrzehnt
During times of war the President has special powers. I don't think the "Affordable Care Act" quite qualifies under war powers. It is unconstitutional, and a travesty.
- ?Lv 6vor 1 Jahrzehnt
A citizen would have been in compliance with the Act if he made his own musket and shot, as some people did. Note the phrase "provide himself." The government is not requiring anyone necessarily to buy anything.
- Wie finden Sie die Antworten? Melden Sie sich an, um über die Antwort abzustimmen.
- vor 1 Jahrzehnt
So? We used to have a law stating that "separate but equal" was constitutional. And we saw how that turned out.
An opinion piece from a liberal blog is hardly any source to prove the constitutionality of mandating the purchase of health insurance.
- vor 1 Jahrzehnt
Considering the 2nd Amendment, that mandate makes perfect sense. They realized the English would be back and they weren't wrong. In 1792, I seriously doubt there were many men that didn't already have a musket.
Where do you see the right to health insurance mentioned in the Constitution?
- Mike WLv 7vor 1 Jahrzehnt
That's how things work in a militia. Members are required to have their own weapon.
- Anonymvor 1 Jahrzehnt
That Act has never been repealed.
Welcome to the militia.
- shootsmyownfoodLv 6vor 1 Jahrzehnt
Does it say anything about having to provide somebody else with a musket?
- u_bin_calledLv 7vor 1 Jahrzehnt
...ok...forgetting that little thing called the "2nd Amendment" and the simple fact that national defense is the primary purpose of the government....
...I believe 1792 case law allows me to own slaves and beat my wife and children.....
...so what's your point?
