It made all male citizens part of the militia, then required them all to buy firearms. Stop being obtuse.
It did nothing of the sort, it applied only to a very limited subset of people, those drafted into the militia, and excluded most people. "Unlike the reach of the health care bill, the Second Militia Act applies to a narrow sub-section of society: white, male citizens between the ages of eighteen and forty-five who are members of the militia. Section I of the Act, which includes the list of required goods, begins: 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 45 years (except as is herein after excepted) shall severally and respectively be enrolled in the militia. It follows that the Second Militia Act would not apply to anyone not enrolled in the militia: including non-citizens, the infirm, men younger than 18, men older than 45, or women. Section II of the Act further exempts a whole host of men, despite fitting the age and fitness requirements, from participating in the militia and therefore the requirement of procuring muskets, bullets, and other such items pertaining to militia service. Specifically exempted from the militia are the Vice-President of the United States, judicial and executive officers, members of the House and Senate, post officers, certain ferry officers and stager drivers to name a few. Moreover, the language of the statute requires to a member of the militia provide himself with the list of goods. It is possible that a man could have inherited a musket, bartered for a knapsack, or made his own bullets, and still be in compliance with the Act. In contrast to the Second Militia Act, the health care bill applies to any living breathing person in America (except maybe top Hill staffers) to purchase health insurance. It is unlikely one could inherit, barter, or create ones own health insurance and avoid the penalty of law. The greatest difference between the health care bill and the Second Militia Act is constitutionality. There is solid constitutional basis for the Second Militia Act: Article I, section 8, clause 16 states that Congress has the power 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, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress. Articulating a list of goods required for militia service is certainly within the bounds of this clause. Indeed, Federalist 29 emphasizes that such regulation of the militia is part of superintending the common defense, and of watching over the internal peace of the Confederacy. In contrast to the Second Militia Act, the health care legislation lacks any constitutional basis or legal precedent to support its requirement that every living person in America purchase health care insurance. Some have suggested the Commerce Clause to be basis for the individual mandate. But this is wrong. The Commerce Clause does not empower Congress to impose a duty on individuals as members of society to purchase a specific service that would be heavily regulated by the federal government. To be clear, neither the original meaning of the clause nor even the most expansive court interpretation of the commerce clause authorizes the individual mandate. The individual mandate is deeply problematic and truly unprecedented. While it is important to look to Founders writings and examples to guide todays policy questions, one should avoid selectively quoting and ultimately mischaracterizing the Founders." http://fixhealthcarepolicy.com/heal...unprecedented-and-unconstitutional/#more-3302 I know this specious argument is being planted all over the internet but it has been roundly refute.
No, it did not. Another fail. First we go from all citizens, to all males, when its only males between 18-45, who are able bodied to join the militia IF, the United States was to be invaded or in Imminent danger
And then there were further exemptions AND the fact that the Constitution explicitly authorized the creation of the militia, REQUIRED it.
It also required them to own a musket, a powder horn, 1/4 pound of gun powder, 20 rifle balls, a shooting pouch, a bayonet and belt, two spare flints, a cartridge box with 24 bullets, and a knapsack. Do you own these items today. Since I already know the answer, why not?
No, it did not. It required Militia, white men form the age of 18 to 45 to purchase a rifle/musket. Obamacare requires EVERYONE to purchase.
I don't understand why they can require, by law, for me to buy car insurance, yet they cannot require me to buy health insurance. Anyone? (well anyone that is nice, not combative).
Yet no where does the Constitution give the Congress explicit power to force citizens to buy private goods. The Militia Act shows that an implied power to do it does exist.
but most already do... think about all those people who arent paying federal income tax who this might force to....shouldnt that make you smile?
No, it doesn't, since the Militia Act was never even challenged, much less upheld in court. The fact that Guardsmen aren't required to furnish their own arms today should tell you something about the Militia Act of 1792...
No it doesn't and no where does the Constitution authorize a health care system or grant the Congress the power to create one. The power to organize and arm a militia was not implied it was explicit.
The fact that most do is irrelevant. BTW- if most citizens have insurance...why the need to pass Obamacare anyway? lmao
thats idiotic, most citizens werent being subjected to discrimination, so why did we need the civil rights act?
Well that explains the Individual MANDATE and the penalty imposed on people who refuse to participate in Obama's government-mandated healthcare protection racket...
