I was not aware of that one.
Has there been anything more recent? Let's say since the abolition of slavery?
Why would I need to do that? Terry thought that the ACA was novel in that way when it turns out that a whole bunch of the people who wrote the Constitution and the "Father of our Country" cranked out a similar requirement almost immediately after the country's founding.
You would think that you guys would be extremely interested in how the founding fathers viewed the permissibly of the federal government forcing people to purchase things.
Its the uncertainty/instability that effects the overall economy that can lead to a catastrophe.
This is just a preview of Oct 15 when the GOP will drive the train over the cliff and get our bond rating reduced again.
When your party has an elected Congressmen saying "Lets roll like 9/11" inregards to Obamacare/Shutdown your party has a problem. Most of the Tea party members are completely irrational and blinded by kool-aid drinking hyper partisanship grandstanding that gets ABSOLUTELY NOTHING DONE.
And if he finds one? Move the goalposts again?
That's completely wrong. You know what the first president was who required US citizens to purchase something? George Washington. (Militia Act of 1792)
You are somehow comparing national security to having to buy health insurance?
Those same people felt it was just to own people of a certain heritage. Pick your poison.
You are somehow comparing national security to having to buy health insurance?
No, I'm offering a specific example of the government requiring citizens to purchase something.
Requiring citizens to purchase an item that was essential to national security when we had no standing army.
And somehow that is comparable to health insurance?
Exactly how is health insurance going to help if we are invaded by Britain? Which did happen during the war of 1812.
You're an idiot.
I think my position has always been quite clear: I don't really care that much about what the founding fathers thought as I think the meaning of the constitution should be interpreted by the people currently living under it. They were wrong about a lot of things.
No, no goalpost movement. I'm comfortable with there being only one other example, in the entire length of the existence of these United States, of the Federal government compelling a purchase.
It strengthens my point, it does not weaken it. Clearly, by the evidence presented by Eskimospy, this is not how we govern.
If he could only find another country or group he hated as much as the Republicans, perhaps he would.Then it's really the Founding Fathers "poor understanding" isn't it?
That combined with Obama's "I will not negotiate" statements. Same for Reid.
I find it humorous that Obama stands there and claims that he will not negotiate about shutting down govt services or national debt and the left portrays this as though he is saying that he will not tolerate a shut down etc. But he's saying the exact opposite: He will shut down the govt over a delay in part of Obamacare. The Dems have spun this well and, as usual, the Repubs can't keep up.
If only Obama could do this in international relations.
Fern
LOL Says the guys whose position is exactly the same on EVERY issue.Sigh. When your arguments are exposed as being terrible you then just go "well it won't be that bad anyway". Why is it that there is never a re-examination of your position, only new justifications for the same old one?
Tell Obama's Dem pals to pass the budget and stop holding America hostage.
LOL!
LOL
Uno
I think my position has always been quite clear: I don't really care that much about what the founding fathers thought as I think the meaning of the constitution should be interpreted by the people currently living under it. They were wrong about a lot of things.
Conservatives as a general rule think of it differently and prefer to look to the founders for constitutional meaning. I would think that it is a reasonable assumption that they viewed the law they passed as constitutional. If you think we should look to them as to what is and is not constitutional, that seems important.
The reality that there may only be one example going back 200 years doesn't invalidate the point one bit, actually (nor is the example particularly relevant either way, but that's a slightly separate point). For example, the whole notion of private property in the U.S. is based on English Common Law, dating hundreds of years ago. But more specifically, many straight-forward precedents on the recording of U.S. property started in the very early 19th century. The fact that (real) property law hasn't changed all that much the last 200+ years and that you can routinely use 200 year old precedents in property disputes doesn't weaken the justification of recording property one bit. Additionally, a very conservative SCOTUS already upheld this and, frankly, they'd know quite a bit better than you would.
To be clear, are you saying SCOTUS upheld ACA or the individual mandate?
I believe that it was the individual mandate and the twisting of the verbiage allowed it to get by. Ignored the intentTo be clear, are you saying SCOTUS upheld ACA or the individual mandate?
THIS is what is wrong with America. Gov't lovers like eski and other liberals don't really care about the Founding Fathers thought process and ideas when it comes to the Constitution. I chalk it up to poor parenting and education that we have people like them walking around. My two oldest have had enough history in school to know the basics and I quiz them on it to make sure they really understand. My kids won't grow up to ignore the Constitution and it's intentions...