South Dakota Pols Introduce Bill Requiring All Citizens to Own a Gun
- Posted on February 1, 2011 at 12:37pm by
Jonathon M. Seidl
- Print »
- Email »
A group of of South Dakota state lawmakers is trying to make a point about the federal government’s individual mandate that everyone must have health insurance. Their method of choice? Introduce a bill that everyone in the state own a gun.
The five politicians recently introduced legislation that would require any adult 21 or older to buy a firearm “sufficient to provide for their ordinary self-defense.” The bill would take effect January 1, 2012 and would give people six months to acquire a firearm after turning 21. It would not, however, apply to people who are barred from owning a firearm.
While ownership would be mandated, the type of firearm would not. Instead, citizens could choose any gun “suitable to their temperament, physical capacity, and preference.”
According to the local paper the Argus Leader, the bill’s sponsors admit the legislation is a stunt:
Rep. Hal Wick, R-Sioux Falls, is sponsoring the bill and knows it will be killed. But he said he is introducing it to prove a point that the federal health care reform mandate passed last year is unconstitutional.
“Do I or the other cosponsors believe that the State of South Dakota can require citizens to buy firearms? Of course not. But at the same time, we do not believe the federal government can order every citizen to buy health insurance,” he said.
The mandates aren’t completely synonymous, as Gawker points out, since state and federal powers differ. Jazz Shaw over at Hot Air recognizes that (so too does Glenn Reynolds at Instapundit), but also wonders if the bill is so cheeky that it could end up backfiring:
While I see what he’s doing here, and it’s a valid argument to make, I’m still not thrilled with the path he has chosen to make his point. We’ve seen other proposals in the past – in Georgia and Texas just to name two – which were far less tongue in cheek and they seem to uniformly hurt the effort to maintain our 2nd amendment rights. It plays to the popular, media driven theme of “gun nuts” versus responsible gun owners.
Further, it clouds the basic argument. The constitution takes great pains to assure the rights of Americans as to what they may do, not what they must do. We all have freedom of speech, but that includes the right to remain silent. (A lesson sadly lost on many modern politicians.)
Popular Stories
Paper Details Obama Admin’s Alleged Secret Note Sent to Iran: If Israel Attacks, We Won’t Get Involved 585 Comments
‘Made Up Religion’: TV Historian Enrages Muslims, Receives Threats After Producing UK Documentary Questioning Islam’s Beginnings 413 Comments
This Is the Creationists‘ Response to Scientist Bill Nye’s Viral Pro-Evolution Video Claiming They Harm Children 412 Comments
Roseanne Barr: Most Billionaires ‘Violent Pedophiles’ & ‘Heartless’ Cocaine Addicts 375 Comments
President Obama Issues Major ‘Green Energy’ Executive Order 368 Comments
Faith
- This Is the Creationists‘ Response to Scientist Bill Nye’s Viral Pro-Evolution Video Claiming They Harm Children 412 Comments
Pakistani Muslim Cleric Accused of Framing Disabled Christian Girl in Koran-Burning Case Read More- ‘Made Up Religion’: TV Historian Enrages Muslims, Receives Threats After Producing UK Documentary Questioning Islam’s Beginnings 413 Comments
Meet the Controversial German Imam Accused of Brutally Beating His Wife & Pushing Sharia Law Read More
‘Self-Proclaimed Messiah’ & Unification Church Leader the Rev. Sun Myung Moon Has Died — Here’s His Life Story Read More
Business
- President Obama Issues Major ‘Green Energy’ Executive Order 368 Comments
- Germany’s Upcoming Court Ruling Will be Huge for the EU Read More
Ford Looks to Beat Toyota for Best-Selling Car in 2012 With This Model 151 Comments
Bernanke & QE3: Here’s What You Need to Know Read More- ‘Extortion’: Why Did the Labor Department ‘Drop the Hammer’ on Oregon Farmers? 303 Comments
Technology
- This Is the Creationists‘ Response to Scientist Bill Nye’s Viral Pro-Evolution Video Claiming They Harm Children 412 Comments
‘TaserDrone’: Hackers Weaponize Quadcopter With Actual ‘Shocking’ Technology Read More
Ever Heard of the Wild ‘Burning Man’ Festival in the Middle of the Nev. Desert? Here’s Your Primer Read More
Stanford Develops Technology ‘Better Than Steroids’ for Athlete Recovery Read More
Have You Pretended to Know What ‘the Cloud’ Is? You’re Not Alone Read More
Submitting your tip... please wait!
Comments (243)
Comeandtakeit
Posted on February 1, 2011 at 1:21pmEven liberals/progressives could agree that making somebody buy something whether a good or a service (like healthcare insurance) is unconstitutional. But that supposes that they agree with the limitations of the constitution. That’s where most people make their mistake. They don’t, otherwise you would have never heard the phrase “the greater good” uttered. They would prefer to legislate their agenda, if that doesn’t work – let’s legislate from the bench in the Judiciary, if they can’t get their way in the courts they do what Obama has done, regulate the change by some unelected bureaucrat from some inane and useless government department that should be gotten rid of long ago. Dept. of Education, the EPA, come to mind right away.
Report Post »GOTT-EM-MAUSER
Posted on February 1, 2011 at 5:34pmFor the Progressive/Communist folks, the Constituion has no relevance whatsoever, other than if it can be twisted to somehow support their agenda. These people are “True Believers” of their own Self Centered God Like Complex Theology. THEY KNOW BETTER than all others just how and what everyone else should do. What is right or wrong is TBD by them and only them, based soley on their own criteria. Their condititon is alas, an uncurable mental disorder, possibly a birth defect, yet to be isolated in the DNA chain.
It is therefore pretty much POINTLESS, to try and discuss anything with them in a sane and rational manner. The best, and really ONLY CURE, for terminal communista-itis syndrome is a .30 caliber bullet at about 2900 FPS, preferably administered as a head shot.
Report Post »sbenard
Posted on February 1, 2011 at 1:21pmI love this law! If it’s a new entitlement, I think I’ll move to South Dakota.
Report Post »Angelacw
Posted on February 1, 2011 at 1:18pmI think they should also have a law that says if you don’t believe in guns and would never own one you should post that on your lawn.
Report Post »JeffRN
Posted on February 1, 2011 at 1:16pmI wonder if the people of the state of ND are pleased to know that their elected officials are burning up tax money introducing bills that are not going anywhere just to make a point that everyone knows already??
Report Post »JeffRN
Posted on February 1, 2011 at 1:18pmSorry, I mean SD.
Report Post »abseas
Posted on February 1, 2011 at 1:25pmYah JEFFRN . . . That’s what a bunch of libs are saying. “Burning up tax money introducing bills.” I doubt that very much tax money was burned up introducing this bill. Even I could’ve typed it up in about a half hour or so and put it on the list. That’s really not a valid issue. The issue is this, the libs were punched square in the face and now they’re gonna spend from now until the end of time whinning and crying, “no fair, no fair!!! Waa waa waa.
Report Post »emertz8413
Posted on February 1, 2011 at 1:14pmSomeone tell my husband, then maybe I could get a gun!!!
Report Post »Hoosier Daddy
Posted on February 1, 2011 at 1:41pmIs a wife considered property in your state? Buy your own gun and tell your husband to develop some coping skills. I wish to hell my wife would come shooting with me but she’s not interested. Luckily, my daughter is and she owns two handguns now.
Report Post »TEXASQUINN
Posted on February 1, 2011 at 1:12pmI was wondering when a smart politician would bring this into legislation, brilliant move in my opinion. I would require any city with crime to have their citizens own a gun because it costs other tax payers money to hire additional police officers (commerce clause) when crime is not prevented. They should fine…I mean tax, the non gun owners $1,000 per year for not purchasing a firearm.
Report Post »kaydeebeau
Posted on February 1, 2011 at 1:34pmVermont is proposing just such a law only the penalty is $500
Report Post »sbenard
Posted on February 1, 2011 at 1:10pmIronically, THIS mandate IS constitutional! I hope our state government does it too! Switzerland has a similar law, and that is the reason that the NAZI’s leap-frogged them in WWII!
Report Post »SevenTrumpets42
Posted on February 1, 2011 at 1:08pmThe South Dakota legislature has it all wrong. Instead of forcing citizens to buy a firearm, they should just “tax” those who can’t show a receipt for purchase on their 1040! This would be considered fair…
Report Post »Its Gonna Getcha
Posted on February 1, 2011 at 1:04pmAgree. It’s a cool point to make, but if it is in any way wasting a dime of tax dollars, it should stop. But get the money somewhere and keep making the point! Because once those realistic robots are sold in the future……
Report Post »franknshadow
Posted on February 1, 2011 at 12:58pmThis stuff is not a game to be played out to the amusement of politicians with too much time on their hands.. Be careful what you wish for people.. Make sure the left hand knows what the right hand is doing..
Report Post »Jayk Signal
Posted on February 1, 2011 at 1:13pmLiberals, by nature, do not have the ability to consider the long-term consequences of their handiwork. The only way to educate them is to force them into philosophical contradictions.
Let’s just call it The Socratic Legislation Method.
Report Post »CONSERVATIVE1
Posted on February 1, 2011 at 12:57pmThis should be done nationwide.
Report Post »JCoolman
Posted on February 1, 2011 at 12:54pmThis law is a state law (whether you like it or not)(whether it is a good law or not). Not a federal law. Making it legal and constitutional. The states have the right to implement laws such as this. The federal government does not. If you need an example, just look at the state of Massachusetts. And their version of ObamaCare. It is perfectly constitutional as long as it stays on the state level. If you dont like it you can move from that state.
Report Post »Veritas
Posted on February 1, 2011 at 1:04pmExactly!! The difference is state law versus federal law. Under the United States Constitution, the feds do not have the power to require everyone to purchase something, but under a states constitution, states do have other powers that may be used to require citizens of that state to purchase something.
Report Post »Flux
Posted on February 1, 2011 at 12:54pmWell in a way, a good gun is one form of health insurance! ; )
Report Post »Hoosier Daddy
Posted on February 1, 2011 at 1:37pmDo you believe in concealed or open-carry insurance?
Report Post »GOTT-EM-MAUSER
Posted on February 1, 2011 at 5:04pmOPEN CARRY.
Report Post ».30 Cal.
BELTFED or BETTER.
George Washington
Posted on February 1, 2011 at 12:49pmThere is a more economical solution. Why don’t we just release all of the prisoners and, lock up all of the law abiding citizens. After the criminals finish killing each other, the law abiding citizens can be released. End of story. Case closed.
Report Post »dcwu
Posted on February 1, 2011 at 12:55pmAwesome!
Report Post »azmomof6
Posted on February 1, 2011 at 3:29pmWould they work really hard to pay for our cable t.v.?
Report Post »sarg356
Posted on February 1, 2011 at 12:48pmIt’s a great way to put it… But i think the mandatory health care will kill more children…
Report Post »jess1386
Posted on February 1, 2011 at 12:47pmI love it. Its worked well in small towns that couldnt afford a proper police department anymore.
Report Post »Untameable-kate
Posted on February 1, 2011 at 12:46pmThe lefties won’t read the story, they’ll just read the headline and go nuts on here.
Report Post »IM_UR_HUCKLEBERRY
Posted on February 1, 2011 at 12:45pmI’m Moving to SD
Report Post »IM_UR_HUCKLEBERRY
Posted on February 1, 2011 at 12:51pmAt least they seem to understand the constitution enough to put pressure on the feds.
Report Post »Most states just go along with EVERY edict from DC
dtitus1304
Posted on February 1, 2011 at 12:45pmWhy do our elected officials waste time with stunts like these. I understand the point, but it is just a complete waste of time. Do something constructive.
Report Post »bikerr
Posted on February 1, 2011 at 12:51pmThe ******** are a waste of time also ,but we still put up with them.
Report Post »Untameable-kate
Posted on February 1, 2011 at 1:01pmIf it sets presidence then it is not a waste of time. I think it is a good idea, now the libs can’t say the health mandate is legal if the gun mandate is not.
Report Post »Jayk Signal
Posted on February 1, 2011 at 1:06pmEducating liberals IS constructive.
Report Post »etetetet
Posted on February 1, 2011 at 1:24pmUNTAMEABLE KATE- but of course, the liberal progressives (and from here forward let us use the correct term) the liberal regressives have already been preparing documentation for waivers :)
Report Post »knotaclu
Posted on February 1, 2011 at 1:26pmdisagree, this is brilliant…..what is it Rush always says, illustrate absurdity with absurdity….
Report Post »Untameable-kate
Posted on February 1, 2011 at 1:42pmetetetet
Report Post »I have my waiver ready too. I call it the ‘stick you hc law up your pooper’ waiver.
Ben41281
Posted on February 1, 2011 at 12:45pmGod I love South Dakota! Can I move there? The climate isn’t much different from where I live in Wisconsin!
Report Post »Untameable-kate
Posted on February 1, 2011 at 1:14pmI thought about moving there, even looked at some houses. Alas, I am a native Arizonan and I decided that it would cause me to stay indoors nine month out of the year.
Report Post »SimpleTruths
Posted on February 1, 2011 at 1:23pmbye! We don’t need your kind in Wisconsin.
Report Post »Mirimichi
Posted on February 1, 2011 at 1:24pmI want to move there, too. I’m in northern MN, so yeah the weather is not a factor. The one big factor though, is no state income tax. And I’m already paying property taxes here, too.
Report Post »bikerr
Posted on February 1, 2011 at 12:45pmStunt? let’s hope it passes!
Report Post »ScreaminEagle
Posted on February 1, 2011 at 12:44pmI like the idea but, can you require a person to buy a gun; ie obamacare ruling.
Report Post »Untameable-kate
Posted on February 1, 2011 at 12:58pmNo you can’t, that is the point behind the law. If the courts say you can‘t force people to buy a gun then you also can’t force them to buy insurance.
Report Post »knotaclu
Posted on February 1, 2011 at 1:27pmscreamingeagle meet encicom, encicom meet screamingeagle….
Report Post »kaydeebeau
Posted on February 1, 2011 at 1:31pmActually the States can – think auto liability insurance – State mandate – not Fed. In our constitution the states and individuals are not restrained – only the Fed Gov’t
Report Post »RedHarley
Posted on February 1, 2011 at 2:25pmKayDeeBeau,
BIG difference between auto insurance and health insurance. You are required to buy auto insurance for the PRIVILEGE of being licensed to own and drive an automobile. That is your choice.
They are trying to force you to buy health insurance for merely existing as a citizen of the U.S.
The states have no power to make you buy health insurance either.
Report Post »Debra
Posted on February 1, 2011 at 2:33pmUntameable-kate
Report Post »Got it. took a while but understand now. thanks
kaydeebeau
Posted on February 1, 2011 at 4:28pmRedHarley – I was speaking of the gun purchase mandate – specifically along the lines of the argument presented by new legislation proposed in Vermont that says a citizen has a duty to protect oneself and to act in defense of the state.
The auto insurance vs health insurance is a non- argument. Auto insurance is to protect others from the damage my car could do to them and to protect the car as long as it is “owned” by the bank / lending company. Since for now at least – I “own” myself and am resposnsible for myself – I can decide whether I want to pay for my own health services directly or pay premiums or a combination
Report Post »8jrts
Posted on February 1, 2011 at 12:44pmI’d rather buy a gun than Obamacare!! It’d be a better deal!! Besides it IS my “right to bear arms” but NOT my “right to heathcare”!!
Report Post »DashRipRock
Posted on February 1, 2011 at 1:01pmI might be coaxed into maybe
A right to Bare-Health Care
you should see some of these nurses……
Report Post »13thGenerationAmerican
Posted on February 1, 2011 at 1:33pmIt’s also your right to be ignorant and I see you are expressing that right to the fullest extent.
Maji
Posted on February 1, 2011 at 3:02pmI think they(SD) should launch a sting to find out how bloomberg bought his last electoin against the local law!! How did he get a third term??
Report Post »GOTT-EM-MAUSER
Posted on February 1, 2011 at 4:59pmWell, the REAL POINT here is very simple;
So long as we have our GUNS, NO ONE, including Communists like OBAMA, and many posters here, can FORCE US to DO or NOT DO much of anything. This bit of TRUTH is what is really the cause of all the angst within the LEFTIST MOVEMENT in this country today.
Here in Texas, an all new “Old Saying” has been born; “Well this sure as hell ain’t Egypt!!” So by all means my Commie Pals, PASS whatever you’ve a mind to, and rope-a-dope it into being the will of the People, all constitutional and such. BUT get ready to find out just how much luck you’ll have trying to ENFORCE it.
This is a coming OPPORTUNITY for all the devout do-gooders in the Saul Alinsky Army, to stop talking, voting and typing about what they want, and how it should be, and start dying for what they believe in. So get YOUR GUNS and your RED FLAGS Comrades, and let’s DANCE!!
See you on the other side!!
Report Post »Devil Dog 7175
Posted on February 1, 2011 at 6:48pmGood for them… hope it passes… An armed man is a citizen, an un-armed man is a subject… Just ordered another thousand rounds, And Mauser, I’m with you … Time to dance commrades!
Report Post »dcwu
Posted on February 1, 2011 at 12:41pmMake it a machine gun, like Switzerland, and require annual training for all citizens, like Switzerland. It got them through WWI and WWII without being attacked!
Report Post »bikerr
Posted on February 1, 2011 at 12:48pmDid they practice shooting at their cheese.
Report Post »RightUnite
Posted on February 1, 2011 at 12:49pmWell, being neutral also helped.
Report Post »dcwu
Posted on February 1, 2011 at 12:51pm@BikeRR
So that’s how they make it!
Report Post »DashRipRock
Posted on February 1, 2011 at 12:59pmOk BIKKER gets the funniest post on this thread award
Report Post »Untameable-kate
Posted on February 1, 2011 at 1:11pmAgreed. Great post Bikerr!
Report Post »Lloyd Drako
Posted on February 1, 2011 at 1:14pm@Bikerr:
Report Post »Yes, and it’s clear they need to practice some more. Have you ever seen a really tight pattern on a piece of Swiss cheese?
wildjoker5
Posted on February 1, 2011 at 1:22pmNot only that, they also have the lowest crime rates in the world. Belguim was also neutral, that didn’t help them much huh?
Report Post »VRW Conspirator
Posted on February 1, 2011 at 1:39pmyeap…there was a special on Military or History International about Switzerland and WWII. Every citizen is GIVEN a gun by the government and required to learn how to shot and defend Switzerland. German spies in WWII saw this…saw that the Swiss had built great tunnels and fortifications INSIDE the Alps….had trained super snipers inside those bunkers…along with really BIG guns…knew that German bombs couldn’t penetrate the bunkers..and rightly told Hitler…”umm…I think we should leave them alone and go around”…..unlike Belgium and the Netherlands which were neutral but occupied by Germany anyway because they had not defenses…..
Peace throught Strength!!
Report Post »Lloyd Drako
Posted on February 1, 2011 at 3:01pmWhat’s all this about Belgium?
Belgium was neutral in 1914, but was invaded by the Germans anyway. The Belgians’ regular army resisted stoutly enough to throw the German timetable off and possibly prevent a German victory in the first weeks of World War I.
Belgium was not neutral in 1940, it had recently joined the Allies, though its preparations were not well coordinated with theirs.
If Belgium was overrun on both occasions, it was not because the Belgians had no guns, it was because they had no Alps to serve as fortified redoubts.
Report Post »GEETAR
Posted on February 1, 2011 at 5:49pmgood move, most of the people who wanna take our guns are the ones who want obumma care.Now if those people up their would get to drillling all that oil up there, we could watch our country start to prosper again.
Report Post »encinom
Posted on February 1, 2011 at 12:39pmIf the mandate in the health care law is unconstitutional so is this law that mandates that citizens purchase a product.
Report Post »cnsrvtvj
Posted on February 1, 2011 at 12:44pmYoy got it ENCINOM! I love it. That should make this perfectly clear to even the far left loons. The government does not have the right to require American citizens to own anything. The liberals keep saying we have no compassion for the poor who don’t have insurance. Obamacare does not give anyone insurance, only requires that they purchase it. If the poor could afford it, wouldn’t they already have it? Obamacare fines those who can’t afford it. There’s liberal compassion for you.
http://www.donsmithshow.com – conservative news and political humor
Report Post »8jrts
Posted on February 1, 2011 at 12:45pmHELLO!!!! Anybody home?? That’s the point!!!
Report Post »Untameable-kate
Posted on February 1, 2011 at 12:45pmRead the article. They are trying to say exactly that, they are setting presidence for the insurance mandate.
Report Post »IM_UR_HUCKLEBERRY
Posted on February 1, 2011 at 12:46pmHope this is CATCHING and TEXAS catches it.
Report Post »dtitus1304
Posted on February 1, 2011 at 12:46pmThat’s the point. Did you read the article?
Report Post »NoMoreGray
Posted on February 1, 2011 at 12:47pmI believe that is the point, any mandate would be unconstitutional.
Report Post »bikerr
Posted on February 1, 2011 at 12:47pmYes ,you a right but at least in South Dakota you could stop them from forcing you to buy health insurance.
Report Post »UpstateNYConservative
Posted on February 1, 2011 at 12:52pmLet’s turn that around: If those supporting O-care say it’s legal to require purchase of insurance, then it’s okay to require people be responsible for their own personal defense. Who has the right to require police to risk their lives for them if they won’t take reasonable steps for themselves?
We can go back and forth like this all day, so spare me some kind of debate to make yourself sound wise and right.
The liberal tit-for-tat, nahnah-nah-nahnah game is so boring, but sometimes fun to play with.
Report Post »DashRipRock
Posted on February 1, 2011 at 12:54pmSo I guess forcing a liberal to own a gun
is a lot like forceing a Conservative to pay for the liberals healthcare
Report Post »82dAirborne
Posted on February 1, 2011 at 12:56pm@encinom
Report Post »Read much??
thorkyl
Posted on February 1, 2011 at 1:07pm“If the mandate in the health care law is unconstitutional so is this law that mandates that citizens purchase a product.”
Incorrect presumption.
The US Constitution does not provide for the ability for the Congress to Mandate the purchase of a product.
The States can force people to purchase products. The reason they can do this is very simple.
If you don’t want to buy… Move to a different State
Report Post »Lloyd Drako
Posted on February 1, 2011 at 1:08pmIf I‘m poor and can’t afford a gun, will the government subsidize it for me?
Report Post »Slobaphobe
Posted on February 1, 2011 at 1:09pm@encinom Ah, the irony of unintended consequences.
Report Post »abseas
Posted on February 1, 2011 at 1:09pmWell duh, ENCINOW! So just exactly why do you think they are introducing this stupid bill? It’s to point out how stupid and UNCONSTITUTIONAL the Bummer health care bill is. This is so funny . . . I read most of the comments from libs such as yourself on another comment board. What a pathetic bunch of non-reading, non-comprehending baffoons! They’re all up in arms berating how unconstitutional this bill would be, not having a clue that it’s only purpose was to point out just that! Sounds like you got SUCKED in too. LOL!
Report Post »abseas
Posted on February 1, 2011 at 1:12pmHa ha ha . . . So maybe ENCINOM will have to drop off the board and get a new name now. LOL!!!
Report Post »knotaclu
Posted on February 1, 2011 at 1:18pm@encinom…..nothing gets past you…..I thought the idea of making this law was awesome but your response is better yet….
Report Post »Angelacw
Posted on February 1, 2011 at 1:19pmThat’s the point – they are pointing out the absurdity of the Health Care mandate.
Report Post »13thGenerationAmerican
Posted on February 1, 2011 at 1:19pmWhat are they, in 5th grade
Report Post »IAMMADDOG
Posted on February 1, 2011 at 1:20pmWe have a bingo!!!!!!!!! Encinom actually gets it….good for you.
Report Post »knotaclu
Posted on February 1, 2011 at 1:23pm@ Lloyd Drako……BRILLIANT…..I love that one….
Report Post »sbenard
Posted on February 1, 2011 at 1:28pmActually, it’s NOT! States DO have the power to pass such a law; only the Federal government is limited in this respect. See the 10th Amendment!
Report Post »mikem1969
Posted on February 1, 2011 at 1:38pmI love it, they are slapping the federal government in the face. LOL. Got to love the logic behind this.
Report Post »DVT
Posted on February 1, 2011 at 1:49pm???? Um….most people read the article before posting….I think you missed the point!
Report Post »abc
Posted on February 1, 2011 at 2:22pmWrong. This is not analogous. Many states require people who drive cars to purchase insurance. This is perfectly analogous to the federal government requiring the purchase of health insurance. Social Security has withstood the constitutionality test, and that is an example of forced purchase of a safety net as well. Whether or not everyone purchases a gun doesn’t impact the effectiveness of the firearm that you possess. However, insurance pools only work when everyone is required to participate. The young, fit person subsidizing the pool today will invariably become the old, sick person that draws out more than they take in at some later date. This dynamic is completely ignored by the gun analogy. Nice political gimmick, but totally dishonest.
Report Post »abc
Posted on February 1, 2011 at 2:27pmSBenard, if that is true, then why have the plaintiffs taking issue with Obamacare framed this as a Commerce Clause overreach? They would have attacked it as a 10th amendment issue if they thought that was the strongest assault. They likely know that such a case is very weak, so they didn’t include it in their complaint.
Report Post »Debra
Posted on February 1, 2011 at 2:30pmThe minute I read that, I wanted to scream. This is so unconstitutional. You can not make a person own a gun if they don’t want to own one.
Report Post »Independent Tess
Posted on February 1, 2011 at 2:37pmI love it!!
Report Post »Cobra Blue
Posted on February 1, 2011 at 2:45pmTexas need not bother. I choose to show intiative and purchase arms without being directed. I recommend this for every model citizen. For you SHEEPLE….following this lead is a good thing.
Report Post »UpstateNYConservative
Posted on February 1, 2011 at 2:54pm@abc
Posted on February 1, 2011 at 2:22pm
Actually, no. You haven’t been listening.
Localities, and the States, have authority within themselves to regulate what happens on the roads provided for the ‘general welfare’. According to your false premise, all the laws in all States and localities would be uniform. But they are not.
Localities and States own the roads. Driving is a privilege, not a right or a demand. The locality decides who may use such provision when not on foot. You might find some kind of analogy but, realistically, you of yourself demand a certain result.\
Let’s play a little more your way…
To cover MY auto insurance, should YOU be made to pay if I can’t afford my premiums? Further, let’s use all the liberal excuses: I can’t afford my car insurance and I need my car for grocery shopping and getting to work. And to get to a hospital if I need one. So, YOU should be paying for me to keep my car insurance up to date.
Further, going by your assertion, YOU should be paying for me to drive a Mercedes and pay fully for me. Hey! I inherited the car and that‘s what I’m driving, so YOU need to pay for my inability/refusal to carry coverage.
Just an idea for you: Next time you want to go with a straw dog, think it through.
Report Post »IntheKnowOG
Posted on February 1, 2011 at 2:55pmabc
Posted on February 1, 2011 at 2:22pm
Wrong. This is not analogous. Many states require people who drive cars to purchase insurance. This is perfectly analogous to the federal government requiring the purchase of health insurance.
Incorrect. The state has domain over public roads; which motor vehicles travel upon. A drivers’ license clearly states that “driving is a privilege, not a right”. Offroad vehicles do not require insurance because they do not travel on public roads. One is not required to seek medical aide at the health department (and so on…). Your logic is based upon a hasty gerneralization. Using your analogy, all heathcare is state provided. Perhaps a dream of your ideological allies, but definitely not a fact.
Report Post »orkydorky
Posted on February 1, 2011 at 2:55pmMy God! Are all these nuts on drugs. Sign on ladder, ” Do not climb ladder, you might fall and hurt yourself”. How many more signs do they need? Maybe we could paste them to their glasses, It’s unconstitutional to force people to buy anything! Duh!
Report Post »UpstateNYConservative
Posted on February 1, 2011 at 3:02pm@orkydorky
No, and that’s the scary part. Liberals actually believe their thing on plain old air.
Report Post »CultureWarriors
Posted on February 1, 2011 at 3:02pmThis is brilliant! Now make the Demo-rats scurry around saying it’s unconstitutional! We all know it is just like Obama-care. Democrats are such morons!
Report Post »orkydorky
Posted on February 1, 2011 at 3:13pm@ IntheKnowOG………………………………………………………………………..
In the state of Oregon we are required to purchase car insurance or not have the privilege to drive , but what really drives me crazy is the fact that they also mandate a person to have un-insured motorist protection. To me that should be unconstitutional. If everyone is required to have insurance, then why would this protection be forced onto people? What’s your opinion on this?
Report Post »Nick84
Posted on February 1, 2011 at 3:16pmWhy are conservatives so against health insurance for everyone? You didn’t think twice when supporting two wars that cost much much more…
Report Post »azmomof6
Posted on February 1, 2011 at 3:16pmI think it’s a cleaver way to make a political, or more accurately, a constitutional point. Well done.
Report Post »joe3
Posted on February 1, 2011 at 3:18pmvermont wanted to tax anyone who did not own $500 a year, as they would not be prepared to defend the state. to bad its full of out of state hippies, that state has the best gun laws in the country. those old farmers who shaped the laws had common sense.
Report Post »UpstateNYConservative
Posted on February 1, 2011 at 3:57pm@Nick84
Posted on February 1, 2011 at 3:16pm
Why are conservatives so against health insurance for everyone? You didn’t think twice when supporting two wars that cost much much more…
_______
Clarify your point, please? I mean, Democrats voted for action, too.
Tell us all, liberal and Conservative, how YOU hold some moral high ground, how YOU can post with such certainty of morality and vision?
Report Post »abc
Posted on February 1, 2011 at 4:00pmUpstateNY,
“Localities, and the States, have authority within themselves to regulate what happens on the roads provided for the ‘general welfare’. According to your false premise, all the laws in all States and localities would be uniform. But they are not.”
My “false” premise is that it is not unconstitutional for a government to force its citizens to purchase a product, in this case insurance. That claim, assuming nothing more, doesn’t necessarily lead to the conclusion that all the laws in al States and localities would be uniform. How you got there is anyone’s guess, but it would seem to be tantamount to putting words in my mouth.
“Localities and States own the roads. Driving is a privilege, not a right or a demand. The locality decides who may use such provision when not on foot. You might find some kind of analogy but, realistically, you of yourself demand a certain result.”
Your claim is that CA demanding car insurance is not the same as the US government demanding health insurance because CA owns the roads and can do what they want, while the US doesn‘t own its citizens’ bodies nor where they might be most of the time. This is a clever argument, but I see a problem with it. As you note, off-road vehicles (e.g., ATVs) are not required to carry insurance in many states (although not all, contrary to your claim), but they are also NOT ALLOWED on public roads. People, on the other hand, are required by federal (not to mention state) law to be treated in the ERs of our hospitals. Hence, the government ultimately has to pay for these folks and thus has a right to require that they be covered for that eventuality. If those people could be excluded from receiving care in hospitals then this would make sense as a way of distinguishing requirement of purchasing car insurance from health insurance, but they cannot be, so it doesn’t follow. Moreover, the Social Security example was left unaddressed. Does that mean you concede that point? Or do you have a novel unconstitutionality claim regarding that 70+ year old public insurance program?
Here is the reality: the individual mandate is a tax, and the federal government is allowed to levy taxes for the general welfare, for which this legislation clearly qualifies. A nice explanation of this argument is found here:
http://healthpolicyandreform.nejm.org/?p=2764
We can play games about whose analogy is more apt all we want, but it’s really beside the point (although I did find your argument rather clever) since the law will be decided on a totally different basis than our current little discussion.
“Let’s play a little more your way… To cover MY auto insurance, should YOU be made to pay if I can’t afford my premiums? Further, let’s use all the liberal excuses: I can’t afford my car insurance and I need my car for grocery shopping and getting to work. And to get to a hospital if I need one. So, YOU should be paying for me to keep my car insurance up to date. Further, going by your assertion, YOU should be paying for me to drive a Mercedes and pay fully for me. Hey! I inherited the car and that‘s what I’m driving, so YOU need to pay for my inability/refusal to carry coverage.”
Funny, none of these straw-man arguments with car insurance mandates have prevented states from passing such laws, although if we were still having that debate, you’d likely be protesting such mandates using the logic given here. The fact is, if a state wants to enact welfare to cover car insurance, people are free to vote on it, but it is likely not going to be overruled on grounds of constitutionality. So I really don’t see the relevance of this game for the purposes of a discussion on whether a government can force someone to buy a particular class of products.
“Just an idea for you: Next time you want to go with a straw dog, think it through.”
I’ll keep that in mind. But, one question: if I’m not allowed to go with straw-man arguments, then why are you allowed to engage in them with that slippery slope bit??
Report Post »Buck_Ofama
Posted on February 1, 2011 at 4:23pmStates have different rights and powers that the federal govt. They can form militias for the protection of the citizenry. Because a federal mandate is unconstitutional does NOT necessarily mean that state mandate is unconstitutional. Why? Because the Constitution recognizes through the Tenth Amendment:
“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”
Connecticut used to have (and it may still be on the books) that every able-bodied man have a rifle to help enforce the laws in remote places.
Report Post »AzDebi
Posted on February 1, 2011 at 4:39pmBingo! You win the prize for the direct answer of the day!!!!! Congratulations!
Report Post »Rapunzel
Posted on February 1, 2011 at 4:43pm@ABC, who said “Wrong. This is not analogous. Many states require people who drive cars to purchase insurance. This is perfectly analogous to the federal government requiring the purchase of health insurance.”
Wrong again. It is not ‘perfectly analogous’ in any way. Many states require ‘people who drive cars’ to purchase insurance. This is within the states’ rights to do so – as driving a car is not an inalienable right granted by our Creator. On the other hand, Obamacare is mandating individuals purchase insurance for no other reason than that they are alive, which just happens to be one of those pesky inalienable rights. The federal government cannot infringe upon our inalienable rights.
Report Post »jbl8199
Posted on February 1, 2011 at 4:45pmI believe in the right to bear arms, but this is a bit ridiculous. I don’t believe that American citizens should be forced to buy anything. What happens if they can’t afford a gun? They get fined for being broke? That’s just about as stupid as the healthcare law.
Report Post »Lantern
Posted on February 1, 2011 at 4:52pmSouth Dakota is cool with me. I got a speeding ticket there one time, but they didn’t call it speeding, they called it a wasting gas ticket.
Report Post »Snowleopard {gallery of cat folks}
Posted on February 1, 2011 at 4:58pmDead on, the mandate for health care is unconstitutional, as is this mandating of gun ownership; the right to own or not to own a gun is guaranteed in the constitution – specifically the right to bear arms, and along with it the choice freely made to not bear arms if desired.
Report Post »aamador
Posted on February 1, 2011 at 6:22pmActually, The health care issue is a Federal issue and the Federal Government is prevented from such overreach by the Constitution. But not a state that’s why Mass passed their version of health care unopposed, you got Mitt Romney to thank for that, You see when a state goes crazy voters can vote with their feet. Not the case with the Federal Gov. The Founding Fathers understood this all to well.
Report Post »912828Buckeye
Posted on February 1, 2011 at 6:40pmHow perfect!
Report Post »blkold7
Posted on February 1, 2011 at 7:08pm@ ABC
Only States,not The Federal Goverment can Mandate Auto Insurance. Feds have nothing to do with it. The State Of Tennessee didnot Mandate Auto Insurance until 2001 if I remember correct,take or give a few years. I most definate can say there was No Mandated Auto Insurance from 1975 to 1995. Here in Florida you are not Mandated to have Insurance on a Motorcycle,but in Georgia & Tennessee, you are Mandated by The State & not The Federal Goverment.
You Libs are so stupid & remove all doubt each time you speak
Report Post »technoid
Posted on February 1, 2011 at 7:17pmYOU GO SD! Now thats what I’m taking about. Point your health care at me and I’ll point my 44
Report Post »TexasCommonSense
Posted on February 1, 2011 at 7:21pmNick84, we already spend more on Medicare/Medicaid ($797.7B) than we do on Defense/Wars ($691B). See usdebtclock.org . Now imaging the cost if everyone was covered. With the perception of being “free”, it would be over used and costs would skyrocket. Defense is what the federal government is supposed to do; check out the personable of the US constitution. Personal responsibility should provide the rest.
Report Post »C. Schwehr
Posted on February 1, 2011 at 7:36pmAs a stunt, it works….but if they were serious, I‘d tell ’em to go stuff it! Barry Soetoro can go stuff it!
Report Post »GREYBEAR
Posted on February 1, 2011 at 7:51pmMaybe the law should require the loons on the left to buy automatic weapons with “EXTENDED MAGAZINES”. (they think these are the true killers)
Report Post »A Doctors Labor Is Not My Right
Posted on February 1, 2011 at 7:55pm“The constitution takes great pains to assure the rights of Americans as to what they may do, not what they must do.”
This is false. The Constitution takes great pains to assure the rights of Americans as to WHAT GOVERNMENT MAY NOT DO TO ITS CITIZENS.
The Federal powers are deliberately enumerated and narrow, and the rest of the matters of Americans are a matter of State’s rights and individual choice.
Report Post »historyguy48
Posted on February 1, 2011 at 8:01pmEncinom: Wrong. The states are soverign in their power. The constitution limits the powers of the Federal Government. The states can pretty much pass whatever laws they want, unless they breach the rights of the individual. That is why Mass health care law is constitutional. It is a state law for that state only.
Report Post »wildbill_b
Posted on February 1, 2011 at 8:14pmIf you read Vinson’s dicta from the health care opinion yesterday you will find some very good examples the judge told the states to use. In fact he gave a lot of other information as well.
http://www.foxnews.com/projects/pdf/Vinson.pdf
“After all, there are lots of
Report Post »markets — especially if defined broadly enough — that people cannot “opt out” of.
For example, everyone must participate in the food market. Instead of attempting
to control wheat supply by regulating the acreage and amount of wheat a farmer
could grow as in Wickard, under this logic, Congress could more directly raise toolow
wheat prices merely by increasing demand through mandating that every adult
purchase and consume wheat bread daily, rationalized on the grounds that because
everyone must participate in the market for food, non-consumers of wheat bread
adversely affect prices in the wheat market.”
DisillusionedDaily
Posted on February 1, 2011 at 8:40pmAll liberals should be required to purchase a brain!
Report Post »portague
Posted on February 1, 2011 at 9:28pm@ABC
“not unconstitutional for a government to force its citizens to purchase a product,”
where in the comerce clause does the fed have the athority to for you to buy anything?
because i do not see it.
The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
To borrow money on the credit of the United States;
To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes;
To establish a uniform rule of naturalization, and uniform laws on the subject of bankruptcies throughout the United States;
To coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin, and fix the standard of weights and measures;
To provide for the punishment of counterfeiting the securities and current coin of the United States;
To establish post offices and post roads;
To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries;
To constitute tribunals inferior to the Supreme Court;
To define and punish piracies and felonies committed on the high seas, and offenses against the law of nations;
To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water;
To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years;
To provide and maintain a navy;
To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces;
To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;
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;
To exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten miles square) as may, by cession of particular states, and the acceptance of Congress, become the seat of the government of the United States, and to exercise like authority over all places purchased by the consent of the legislature of the state in which the same shall be, for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards, and other needful buildings;–And
To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof.
Report Post »Mikeyyy
Posted on February 2, 2011 at 2:34ami need a new gun to go along with my last XDM 9mm purchase…can South Dakota please ship me one cod?
Report Post »hillbillyinny
Posted on February 2, 2011 at 7:44amTo “CNSRVTVJ”:
People who do NOT have health care today, are in that position by a DECISION made by them (except for some “pre-existing conditions. . . ). If you have no money there is medicaid and other health plans through counties/states. If you can afford a health plan there are also health plans for individuals who do not have lost of money (partial pay, catosrophic, etc.–what health plans USED to be before the cadillac ones!).
If you choose to have your Masaradi rather than a health plan, that’s your choice. At payment time you should be billed on “need” and have a certain amount of time to pay. If you own a home you can do a reverse mortgage for “usable” money. When there is a WILL there is a WAY!
But health care for each person may or may not be the “save at all costs” kind–don’t know when we went to that anyway! Life is short, forever is just that, and healthcare won’t help you there!
It’s a shame this is just a “test” of the commerce system. . .
Report Post »the_zazzy
Posted on February 2, 2011 at 2:48pmWe all know that liberalism is a mental condition, so let’s keep the belittling of Encinom to a minimum. We certainly wouldn’t degrade other people with diagnosed mental conditions. Maybe this is Encinom’s “awakening” to his condition, and he will now realize what us rational thinkers have been saying the whole time…yeah, right!
Report Post »abc
Posted on February 2, 2011 at 3:12pmBLK, please don’t call me stupid unless you actually disproved my argument. Else, it is you who look stupid. That a government chose not to require purchase of a product in one state doesn’t rebut the fact that other governments in other states did so, without any constitutional issue being triggered. That was the point, and it still stands. No one has touched the Social Security example, but I continue waiting (without holding my breath) for a response.
Portague, the Commerce Clause has been interpreted quite broadly by the courts over the years, and only in the last 15 has it been brought back in a little bit. But when the federal government regulates commerce it can cause additional expense for citizens, often brought through added opex and capex for businesses (e.g., forcing businesses to standardize equipment, procedures, etc.). This may not be perfectly analogous to the idea of forcing people to purchase a product, but the Constitution doesn’t expressly state that the Commerce Clause cannot be interpreted to require such a purchase. One has to read the important Commerce Clause cases to have an understanding of what is constitutionally legitimate federal regulation and what is not. Just looking at the Constitution doesn’t get you there. As with most things, it is more complex than what Glenn Beck or Fox News would have you believe, and that complexity is absolutely necessary given the complexity of our country.
Report Post »The Gooch
Posted on February 2, 2011 at 6:15pmI like pointing out the obvious too! I just made a pointless post. Whoopee!
Report Post »valricoslash
Posted on February 3, 2011 at 12:45pmThat is the point. If the Feds come down and say that the state can’t mandate that [people purchase a gun, then their whole premise that the feds can require all people to purchase health insurace is alo not valid.
Report Post »