0 votes

What would the Framers think of the Supreme Court decision?

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

They would say

"Why the hell did we even bother writing these documents if not to prevent things like this from happening."

Don't feed the pandas. Ever.

Regulating the State Militias was not using the Commerce clause!

English law had long recognized the able bodied males as the national militia and required gun ownership:

"The English militia concept was unique because of its plebeian character. By 1181, every English freeman was required annually to prove ownership of weapons according to the worth of his chattels, and to serve the King at his own expense when summoned by the sheriff of his county. [13] In 1253, an Assize of Arms expanded the duties still further to encompass villeins or serfs--the lowest socioeconomic group in English society. [14] The universal nature of the obligation again was confirmed [p.7] in 1285, by the Statute of Winchester, under Edward I. [15]"


The founding fathers held this concept of the militia, even after it had waned in England, and did not consider the modern National Guard to be the same as the militia. (Ibid) In fact, it was the various state militias which had supplemented the Continental Army in defeating the British in our "Revolutionary War", (which was actually affirming the supremacy of the colonial legislatures and the King over the British Parliament...) Unfortunately, requiring participation in a state militia was a matter of national defense, (U.S. Constitution, Article I, Sec. 8) not the regulation of commerce.

Lastly, requiring ship captains to have a doctor on board to insure the health of their crews, was an exercise in regulating commerce on the high seas, where federal law does prevail under the constitution. Otherwise, the captain could dump a sick crew member at some foreign port and leave him on his own to die quickly. That has no bearing on the requirement that all U.S. residents buy health insurance when they live and work in a U.S. state. Traditionally, this has not been a federal concern, and the Tenth Amendment leaves health care to be regulated by the states, not the federal government.

Did you actually read the

Did you actually read the article or just open it and write a post about the few words you saw before you closed it two seconds later?

Private citizens were mandated to buy private goods (firearms).

Ship captains were mandated to purchase medicine and physician insurance for their crew.

Seamen were mandated to purchase hospital insurance for themselves.

All by the Framers of the Constitution, which should be shocking to those on here who revere them.

Harvard yard is again comparing an apple with an orange...

mixed in with a bit of ipse dixit about health insurance in the 18th century. The concept of a republic imposed a duty on the militia, the able bodied men, to bear arms to defend it, just as the Swiss do today. They were all members of the national military, although at a state level, and required by statute to be able to defend the Republic against threats. Actually, buying a rifle is much less intrusive than conscription, but still part of the same duty to defend the Republic, which had a long history in English law. (See the article that I cited which you clearly didn't read.) It had nothing do to with regulating commerce.

The bit about ships and sailors needing health insurance is unsupported and doesn't jive with what we know about the days of the sailing ship. So an American sailor needed to have hospital insurance which would have been accepted in say France? It sounds like a gross distortion of what existed, i.e., some requirement for the ship's captain to hire a doctor and stock medicine on his ship.

Tall tales don't make for good, persuasive arguments.

Try reading some of your "authorities" with a bit more skepticism please.


didn't know insurance even existed before something like around the mid-1940's. I'm a little skeptical.

"If you want something you've never had before, you have to do something you've never done before." Debra Medina

And this is why the

And this is why the conspiracy theory nuts make so much money on the internet.

How about you do a little research into insurance instead of letting your ignorance keep you in the dark.

My ignorance, if you will, comes from my knowledge of

my grandparents and their fathers. Typical Agrarians in those days. Insurance didn't exist. As in unheard of...until around the mid-1900's at the earliest.

Didn't notice any scholarly cites in the online newspaper's article...............?? Show me. Educate me.

"If you want something you've never had before, you have to do something you've never done before." Debra Medina

This took me all of two


This took me all of two seconds to find... But maybe the Obama administration just went in and wrote this before the Supreme Court decision...

The fact that your ancestors were equally ignorant about insurance doesn't change reality.

Why don't you spend another 2 seconds and read

your 2 second research piece, genius. And then research a little more to determine what society was like at the turn of the century-94% agrarian. Your deep and scholarly research only pertains to city dwellers, what few there were. Good night sweet dreams.

"If you want something you've never had before, you have to do something you've never done before." Debra Medina

"Amazing, didn't know

"Amazing, didn't know insurance even existed before something like around the mid-1940's."

? You claimed that insurance (without specifying what type) didn't exist prior the 1940's, simply because you weren't aware of it, and I furnished evidence that insurance (both in concept and practice) existed far, far prior to that period. Now, because your only standard for truth seems to be the words and experiences of your apparently agrarian ancestors, you claim some kind of technicality. Whatever.

This proves that health insurance didn't exist before 1850!!!

"Accident insurance was first offered in the United States by the Franklin Health Assurance Company of Massachusetts. This firm, founded in 1850, offered insurance against injuries arising from railroad and steamboat accidents. Sixty organizations were offering accident insurance in the US by 1866, but the industry consolidated rapidly soon thereafter. In 1887, the African American workers in Muchakinock, Iowa, a company town, organized a mutual protection society. Members paid fifty cents a month or $1 per family for health insurance and burial expenses.[20] In the 1890s, various health plans became more common. Group disability policy was issued in 1911.[21]"


Now tell us again how George Washington signed a requirement that sailors purchase hospital insurance when hospital insurance never existed then.

I will be waiting for an explanation for this, but I won't expect an intelligent response...

Apparently you need a lesson

Apparently you need a lesson on what constitutes a standard of proof, unless you have more evidence you're not sharing? This article talks about accident insurance, not hospital insurance. Comprehensive health insurance (hospital, doctor, medicine, etc) was an invention of the 20th century, no one has claimed the Congress ordered ship captains to provide "health insurance" per say.

Insurance (particularly health) is a concept that has evolved over time, and was fine-tuned in the 20th century. Since Colonial times, private insurance programs have existed to cover everything from if your house catches on fire, to if one of your slaves runs away. Many of the programs and systems of payouts were rudimentary and hardly what we would call 'insurance' in the way we have it today, but they are related, and when looking at constitutionality it's important to be able to assess the actions of the early Congress by drawing parallels to today's very different world.

Bottom line, the Congress mandated private citizens/companies to purchase private goods and services. It's curious, since health care was so cheap back then, but unfortunately not much has been written as to why they mandated these things (except in the case of firearms).

One or more of the "framers"

would have challenged the pretend judge Roberts to a duel to the death. Yeah...they actually did stuff like that.

"Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is argument of tyrants. It is the creed of slaves." William Pitt in the House of Commons November 18, 1783
"I know major allies who fund them" Gen. Dempsey

Read the article first,

Read the article first, thanks.

The Framers would have revolted long before this obamination

made it to judicial review.