I was never challenged, meaning that it was Constitutional. Bills and laws created by Congress are Constitutional until they are proven otherwise. Guardsmen are required to furnish their own arms today because most people can't afford to buy their own Apache or Abrams.
But the Militia Act did not arm the militia. It required the Militia to buy private goods in order to arm themselves.
That's not true! The Militia Act of 1792, Passed May 8, 1792, providing federal standards for the organization of the Militia. An ACT more effectually to provide for the National Defence, by establishing an Uniform Militia throughout the United States. 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.
to be fair...if nobody was ever forced to buy anything, for whatever reason... thus couldnt show they were damaged, then nobody would have standing to challenge it anyway.
It also outlined a specific set of gear they were required to own. Do you own that gear today and why not?
Indeed, it HAS been refuted. In addition to the points you mentioned in your post regarding the Militia Act of 1792, here's one of the better refutations of the Act as a precedent for ObamaCare's unconstitutional individual mandate:
The Militia Act was gradually replaced. It no longer applies. Yet, it doesn't change the fact that at the time it was active, it was a Federal requirement for people to buy private goods.
The Militia Clause gives Congress the power to provide for arming of militia. The Militia Act did not provide for the militia's arming. It required them to buy private goods to arm themselves. Those are two entirely different things.
First, it was NOT a mandate for all citizens. Second, it was that each militia purchase their own goods through what ever means. Not through the government coffers.
and there is no govt coffers to purchase it from now....so I dont know what that awas supposed to mean. there is no public option...didnt you hear?
Exactly it was a mandate that they purchase a private good out of their own pocket or for the state to pay for it. State could choose to pay for people's health insurance now if they wanted. If the government has the power to force one citizen to buy something, then it has that power for any citizen.
But, later on the government provided their gear for them. Just as the government will eventually provide health coverage for everyone. Otherwise known as "Socialized medicine". Get in line. The doctor will see you next year.
No, it doesn't mean it was Constitutional - it means that it was never challenged and upheld in court before it got overhauled. No, they're not - they're simply unchallenged. Using your own logical fallacy, every law that was passed and later found unconstitutional by the judiciary was somehow constitutional at some point in time. Good luck reconciling that contradiction with reality. A likely excuse. Why doesn't the government require Guardsmen to supply themselves with the arms and equipment that they can afford?
But your not required to be a gaurdmans. It's a voluntary service so if you chose to enlist, then you are required to burden that cost.
If the government has the power to require one citizen to do something, then it has that power for any citizen. Otherwise, equality before the law doesn't exist.
What an asinine assumption. The Militia act was the US government asserting it's constitutional obligation to protect against foreign invasion. The US military wasn't powerful enough at the time to repel another attack from a super power such as Britain or France or even Spain for that matter. But, that's why the act was slated for only 2 years.... It was a suset law Sec. 10. And be it further enacted, That this act shall continue and be in force, for and during the term of two years, and from thence to the end of the next session of Congress thereafter, and no longer.
Yes, it's been answered a MILLION times!. Youre not forced to own a car which means youre not forced to purchase automobile insurance.... Youre not forced to purchase homeowners insurance unless you chose to purchase a house. These are criterias you must meet in order to require these insurances. Obamacare requires EVERONE, no matter what, to own medical insurance using the commerce clause.
you only have to have health insurance if you make enough money to buy health insurance and still dont have it. so you dont have to earn that much money....just like you dont have to drive a car.
