Do you think Congress' first "Must Purchase Mandate" --The "Militia Act of 1792 -- was unconstitutional?
The Militia Act of 1792 required all able bodied men to arm themselves with a musket, bayonet & belt, a cartridge box with 24 bullets, two spare flints, and a knapsack. Men owning rifles were required to provide a powder horn, ¼ pound of gun powder, 20 rifle balls, a shooting pouch, and a knapsack. There were a small list of men exempted due to being employed in occupations deemed necessary to the nation’s survival. Members of Congress, stage coach drivers and ferryboat men were exempted, for instance. George Washington made use of the law in calling up the Militias to put down the Whiskey Rebellion in 1994
Do you think a Congress well appointed with Founding Fathers, and a President who himself was chief among the Founding Fathers were wrong about the constitutionality of the mandate? Or is a mandate fine when it’s aimed at killing people, but a problem when aimed at saving lives?
With the Affordable Care Act being upheld by the Supreme Court today, it seemed sensible to look at the precedent for an individual mandate. When the GOP Justices like Scalia mouthed Rush Limbaugh talking points like "You can make people buy broccoli", do you think it was because they were simply ignorant of precedent, or because they were playing to a partisan crowd they knew were ignorant of it?