Library of Congress
Guess what he forced American consumers to buy?
For the last year or so, the principal argument from the right against the Affordable Care Act has focused on the individual mandate, which conservatives argue is a form of tyranny. Never before in American history, Republicans argue, have Americans been forced to make a purchase against their will.
At a surface level, there are a couple of obvious problems with the argument. For one thing, under the individual mandate, consumers aren't actually required to make a purchase against their will; they would simply have to pay a tax penalty if they choose to go uninsured. For another, some of the same Republicans making the argument believe there's nothing wrong with the government forcing women to purchase medically-unnecessary ultrasounds against their will.
And then, of course, there's the fact that Americans are already forced to buy all kinds of things. Drivers are required to purchase auto insurance; many homeowners are required to purchase flood insurance; factory owners are required to purchase safety equipment; etc.
But, the right argues, those are fairly modern developments. What about the American tradition, before it was tarnished by post-New Deal liberalism? Surely the Founding Fathers wouldn't have tolerated laws that compelled Americans to make specific purchase, right?
Wrong.
Ezra Klein flagged an item this morning from Eric Spiegelman, who raised an interesting point.
How far can the definition of Congress' enumerated powers be stretched? As Justice Scalia asked during oral arguments: if Congress can force you to buy health insurance, can they also force you to buy broccoli? The question I like to ask is: what if Congress forced you to buy a gun?
What a good question. The answer might surprise you.
I wrote about this quite a bit during the debate over health care reform, but the answer is, Congress has actually forced American consumers to buy a gun. In 1792, with George Washington's support, Congress passed a law requiring all men eligible for militia service to purchase a firearm and ammunition, even if they don't want to. There was no subsidy.
Six years later, in 1798, Congress passed and President John Adams signed a law requiring privately employed sailors to purchase health insurance. Soon after, Thomas Jefferson also supported a measure that required private citizens to pay into a public health care system.
I suppose Republicans might argue that George Washington, John Adams, and Thomas Jefferson didn't understand what the Founding Fathers wanted; their policies were at odds with the American tradition; and all three had an affinity for Obama-style authoritarian tyranny, but if they make that argument, I'm going to laugh at them.
Leave a Comment:
The examples you gave -- other than guns and insurance from GW and JA -- are all state requirements. They have no bearing on the question of whether the feds can force us to buy stuff.
I don't buy the conservative argument, either, but many of the examples given don't refute their argument.
Three examples were given:
You said:
Could you please clarify your statement? I must have missed your nuance of how one out of three equals many and how one out of three equals all.
He leads with two examples that are both state mandates. At the end, he mentions Congressional mandates, but leading with a weak argument is not a wise strategy.
Excuse me, it is for defense of the UNITED States, not the state you live in in order to have a non standing army, the original Bill of Rights says the right to bear arms shall not be infringed.
Otherwise, President Bush (OR OTHERS) would not be able to call up send National Guard to Iraq, etc, or was that unconstitutional?
kennysdad, your response brought forth a healthy laugh, thanks, after all 3 examples were given but only two were federal requirements, the other 1 was a state requirement. I have no idea of your political views, nor do I care, but your unintended hilarity was greatly appreciated.
And the gop can not even come up with a good argument against a state gov requiring something , and the fed doing the exact same thing , we have all witnessed how all of the sudden states rights do not matter when it comes time to implement gop favored laws , EVERYONE needs to stop falling for that gop con game
Wouldn't it be wonderful to watch the Mass. health-care system be destroyed by the ussc? All in the name of ayn rand freedom , because people should not be forced to buy medical care if they get hit by a car , or if their child gets cancer , it is all just like buying broccoli after all , when is the last time someone went bankrupt buying broccoli ?
Or how about me being forced to buy new jets for the air force from private industries ?
But the examples of guns and insurance stand, right?
I know what I am about to say is wholly inarticulate, but...this is just epic! Steve, I laugh with you!
Congress CAN make you buy broccoli provided that all of the other elements for action under the Commerce clause are met. One imagine a time when broccoli has been found to be a preventative for cancer provided that it is eaten once every week. Putting aside the current Court's recent allergy to Wickard and its progeny, Congress could require the purchase of broccoli (private innerstate action) because the health concerns it addressed (i) involved interstate travel and (ii) when aggregated, substantially affected interstate commerce. So, for example, could Congress require vaccinations against a recently developed chemical weapon in Iran? Of course it could. If broccoli served the same medical function, then it too could be mandated.
The Sailors Relief Act of 1798 is an example that I have been pointing to since this argument over the ACA was passed. It was the foundation upon which the Veterans Administration Medical System was built.
Still will not prevent Scalia from reversing earlier votes of his to rule it unconstitutional.
Sidenote: I continue to believe that Obama's Solicitor General has multiple instances of poorly argued cases in front of the Supremes. WTF is that joke still there?
It would seem that our justices need to understand a few cases from our past to rule equitably on the ACA. Well, we will know in two days.
People are required by law to purchase vaccinations, for instance.
...and children are not allowed to attend school if their parents fail to comply.
It's not a federal law; it varies from state to state, and they have exemptions to said law(s), mostly religious.
What some folks don't seem to get is that even if one is not required to buy health insurance, the rest of us end up paying for their care if they get sick or injured and can't afford the care. The cost of that care is passed to us through the prices of supplies and services once they are adjusted up for that person's inability to pay. Even if they go to a free clinic, those costs are usually subsidized by some branch of government. And that means we pay for their care through our taxes.
So why is it unfair to require people to pay for their own coverage? Nobody goes their entire life without any need for medical care. The odds of someone driving their entire life without causing any accidents are much greater, and we require liability insurance for drivers.
I grew up in Kennesaw, GA which has a law stating that every household must own a gun. Nobody enforces it but it's still on the books.
But the problem is that both examples have subtle, legal distinctions from the ACA mandate, which make them rather different than the ACA mandate. For one thing, “provide himself” does not equal “buy,” nor was that mandate about obtaining the product from a private entity in order to subsidize others who “need” it.
In the case of the 1798 mandate, the “able bodied men” were not required to purchase anything, given that the option to borrow, trade or make their own existed. In that case, there wasn’t a provision for a federal standing army, something that part of the founding fathers were against, at that time. As the need for a federally funded standing army grew, they created laws to raise/maintain one, and then ditched the mandate.
The other mandate, was specifically for seaman. So in much the same way that if I choose to drive, I must participate in the system of rules drivers must adhere too; I must buy insurance. Of course if I choose not to drive, I am exempt for any such mandates in much the same way I would have been at the time, if I was not a seaman.
Neither of these mandates was based on simply being alive, and the presumed inevitable participation in the market.
So why am I forced by the state to have "car insurance"? Isn't that a violation of my rights & liberties? Same thing with "Health Insurance" at some point everyone will need to see a doctor for something! These people are an anathema on life itself, their willful blindness and totally vacuous words are proof that they are flailing about wildly just to "discredit this President"! The really sad part is that those of US not buying their bs realized with the elevation of Shrub - they are as nakedly ignorant and stupid as that emperor with no clothes!
Rachel, in your spare time, could you make a list of the estimated corporate dollar value of Presidents, Senators, Congress people, Judges, local political representatives - I think it is only fare to publish the list for the benefit of Corporations. if they have a list, they won't overspend when buying the politicians.
how much do you think a Supreme Court Judge is worth, I would like to buy a new one or two
Ouch, you hit 'em hard with that one. Shame they are to dense to feel the punch.
Well actually they only listen to far right fanatics and could not care less about truth or facts.
It I remember correctly, many contracts issued by the Federsal govenment require the successful contractor to buy liability insurance among other things. Since corporations are people this must be analogous.
Having trouble with kendysdad's comment. Driver's licenses, while issued by States, have to comply with all sorts of Fed requirements (Take a look at Drivers Privacy Protection Act (Public Law 103-322). Flood insurance is a federal program and I think you will find OSHA at the bottom of most requirements to buy safety equipment. To say they have no bearing on this question seems rather uninformed.
George Washington was a Keynesian Socialist.
And a Kenyan!!!
say that three times quickly: keynsian socialist kenyan....
I liked "Family Guy" where the founders were discussing right to bear arms.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zsMaN7mdSWs
just for more laughs.