Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

General Discussion

Poll_Blind

(23,864 posts)

15. There's a reason this argument didn't come up from either side or the Justices during the hearing:

Reply to one_voice (Original post)

Sat Apr 14, 2012, 04:46 PM

Apr 2012

It's specious.

The only thing in that article that's genuinely germane to the situation is the 1792 statute requiring able-bodied men to purchase firearms. That's it.

That was never federally enforced.

Virginia v. Sebelius is specifically about whether individuals can be compelled to actively participate in interstate commerce when they might not have participated in it at all. I'm not even sure the presumption of whether healthcare of an uninsured person defacto translates into interstate commerce has been settled.

I think professor Elhauge is stretching the point into a generality to make his case to a public audience when such a thing would have been drummed out of a presentation to the Court.

PB

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

23 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

If Health Insurance Mandates Are Unconstitutional, Why Did the Founding Fathers Back Them? [View all] one_voice Apr 2012 OP

Wow. That is an interesting post. Hoyt Apr 2012 #1

commies! BootinUp Apr 2012 #2

You're right mazzarro Apr 2012 #4

interesting, and good support. but the constitutionality question is trivial as an income tax unblock Apr 2012 #3

Then they can start a mandatory firearm law. Great. dkf Apr 2012 #5

well, our founders did say the power to tax is the power to destroy... unblock Apr 2012 #10

That would destroy this country with violence jenwilson Apr 2012 #13

Mandatory health insurance might bury us in ever expanding health care costs. dkf Apr 2012 #23

this is a terrible comparison backwoodsbob Apr 2012 #17

wrong. unblock Apr 2012 #19

Too bad we didn't hear this mentioned during the Supreme Court arguments. nt crazylikafox Apr 2012 #6

The reason you didn't hear it... meaculpa2011 Apr 2012 #16

Except that in 1792, there was no such thing as health insurance, nor insurance companies Bluenorthwest Apr 2012 #7

let me guess... BootinUp Apr 2012 #9

Self-insurance is still insurance. lumberjack_jeff Apr 2012 #12

That was collected by the government not to private for profit corporations. Uncle Joe Apr 2012 #20

That reminds me of this: The Straight Story Apr 2012 #8

Perhaps the answer to OP question is: The Framers did not have Paul Ryan, etc. to explain to the SDjack Apr 2012 #11

Gosh, the administration should have used this argument in front of the Supreme Court. progressoid Apr 2012 #14

There's a reason this argument didn't come up from either side or the Justices during the hearing: Poll_Blind Apr 2012 #15

You mean the Libertarians are lying to me!? fightforfreedom123 Apr 2012 #18

In those days, insurance companies did not get rich from mass murder n/t eridani Apr 2012 #21

Because health insurance corporations did not exist in 1790. Very few enjoyed "limited liability." Selatius Apr 2012 #22