George Washington was a Socialist Too!

[EZ-E]

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America"

[EZ-E]

A little piece of the first State of the Union Address:

Among the many interesting objects which will engage your attention that of providing for the common defense will merit particular regard. To be prepared for war is one of the most effectual means of preserving peace.

 

A free people ought not only to be armed, but disciplined; to which end a uniform and well-digested plan is requisite; and their safety and interest require that they should promote such manufactories as tend to render them independent of others for essential, particularly military, supplies.

 

The Constitution of the United States of America was taken into account in mandating the purchase of guns. The constitution was completely ignored in making this Health Care Bill.

 

You also have to look at both timeframes. It was completely necessary to own a gun to “provide for the common defense” in the late 1700s because we had just had a war on our own soil. The current time period health care prices have gone through the roof, but this bill did literally nothing to help lower the price of health care.

 

I see Washington mandating the purchase of guns as unconstitutional as the Selective Service; which is in fact not unconstitutional as it is outlined in Article 1, Section 8, Clause 12 of your United States Constitution.

 

“The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

Clause 12 starts: “To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years”

[EZ-E]

George Washington mandating the purchase of guns wouldnt even fall under the category of socialism. Even if you want to make the arguement that it maybe unconstitutional, it is not socialist.

 

so·cial·ism   /ˈsoʊʃəˌlɪzəm/ Show Spelled[soh-shuh-liz-uhm] Show IPA

–noun

1.a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole.

 

So one could interpret this as saying you work for the good of society and not the individual. Does purchasing guns fit into that definition? No. This hardly relates to GW mandating the purchase guns.

 

Make the arguement that it is unconstitutional and then MAYBE it would have a case. But socialism it is not.

[carlfense]

George Washington mandating the purchase of guns wouldnt even fall under the category of socialism. Even if you want to make the arguement that it maybe unconstitutional, it is not socialist.

That's the point E. The point is that the people screaming that requiring the purchase of health insurance (or guns) is socialism are wrong. No one is actually arguing that Washington was socialist. I think you might have missed the point.

 

By they, I agree with you that requiring that someone purchase a gun would probably be permitted under the constitution. I would use a little different reasoning than you but we end up with the same conclusion.

[carlfense]

A little piece of the first State of the Union Address:

Among the many interesting objects which will engage your attention that of providing for the common defense will merit particular regard. To be prepared for war is one of the most effectual means of preserving peace.

 

A free people ought not only to be armed, but disciplined; to which end a uniform and well-digested plan is requisite; and their safety and interest require that they should promote such manufactories as tend to render them independent of others for essential, particularly military, supplies.

 

 

The Constitution of the United States of America was taken into account in mandating the purchase of guns. The constitution was completely ignored in making this Health Care Bill.

 

You also have to look at both timeframes. It was completely necessary to own a gun to “provide for the common defense” in the late 1700s because we had just had a war on our own soil. The current time period health care prices have gone through the roof, but this bill did literally nothing to help lower the price of health care.

 

I see Washington mandating the purchase of guns as unconstitutional as the Selective Service; which is in fact not unconstitutional as it is outlined in Article 1, Section 8, Clause 12 of your United States Constitution.

“The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

Clause 12 starts: “To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years”

Regarding all of this: I won't go into the commerce clause, which is undoubtedly where the Supreme Court will find that this is constitutional. However, if we limit the discussion to your quote from the Constitution, the health care bill would fall squarely under "provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States."

[sarge87]

"There may have been better analogies out there, but the point Carlfense was making was that even our "founding fathers" had unfunded mandates, despite what some pundits claim."

 

Thanks knapplc. That's exactly what I was shooting for.

The author would like you to think it was an unfunded mandate from the federal government but in all actuality it wasn't.

 

This is Article I from the 2nd Militia Act of 1792 in its entirety.

 

I. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, That each and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective States, resident therein, who is or shall be of age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years (except as is herein after excepted) shall severally and respectively be enrolled in the militia, by the Captain or Commanding Officer of the company, within whose bounds such citizen shall reside, and that within twelve months after the passing of this Act. And it shall at all time hereafter be the duty of every such Captain or Commanding Officer of a company, to enroll every such citizen as aforesaid, and also those who shall, from time to time, arrive at the age of 18 years, or being at the age of 18 years, and under the age of 45 years (except as before excepted) shall come to reside within his bounds; and shall without delay notify such citizen of the said enrollment, by the proper non-commissioned Officer of the company, by whom such notice may be proved. That every citizen, so enrolled and notified, shall, within six months thereafter, provide himself with a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack, a pouch, with a box therein, to contain not less than twenty four cartridges, suited to the bore of his musket or firelock, each cartridge to contain a proper quantity of powder and ball; or with a good rifle, knapsack, shot-pouch, and powder-horn, twenty balls suited to the bore of his rifle, and a quarter of a pound of powder; and shall appear so armed, accoutred and provided, when called out to exercise or into service, except, that when called out on company days to exercise only, he may appear without a knapsack. That the commissioned Officers shall severally be armed with a sword or hanger, and espontoon; and that from and after five years from the passing of this Act, all muskets from arming the militia as is herein required, shall be of bores sufficient for balls of the eighteenth part of a pound; and every citizen so enrolled, and providing himself with the arms, ammunition and accoutrements, required as aforesaid, shall hold the same exempted from all suits, distresses, executions or sales, for debt or for the payment of taxes.

The bolded part left out by the author states that every citizen enrolled and providing their own arms would be exempt from paying taxes past and present debts to the federal government which should have more than made up the cost for his equipment. So, basically in exchange for one's service, the federal government would offer tax amnesty. Hardly an unfunded mandate.

 

I think someone else pointed out the constitutionality argument for this as provided for Article I Sec 8 of the US Constitution....

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

 

The reason for having the militia to provide for their own equipment is Congress felt the soldier would take better care of his equipment if he had a vested interest in it. During the Revolutionary War many of the individual states provided arms and equipment to their militias to fight with the Continental Army. After hostilities ended, the equipment provided for the soldiers often ended up in disrepair due to neglect over the years following the war. This was glaringly apparent trying to get enough militiamen with working muskets and ammunition to put down Shea's Rebellion. Washington was frustrated by this, because he thought if the army couldn't put down a home grown insurrection, how could they put down another threat from abroad. This where the need for the Militia Acts of 1792 originated from. The Militia Acts were the United States' first military conscription.

 

So Republican lawyers and attorneys general around the country are preparing challenges to the healthcare reform bill on constitutional grounds, perhaps hoping that a Supreme Court majority will strike down the legislation with the same flagrant disdain for legal precedent and democratic order displayed in Bush v. Gore.

It's been 10 years and the author is still not over this......That is so sad. I'll send him an all day sucker in the mail.

[carlfense]

"There may have been better analogies out there, but the point Carlfense was making was that even our "founding fathers" had unfunded mandates, despite what some pundits claim."

 

Thanks knapplc. That's exactly what I was shooting for.

The author would like you to think it was an unfunded mandate from the federal government but in all actuality it wasn't.

 

This is Article I from the 2nd Militia Act of 1792 in its entirety.

 

I. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, That each and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective States, resident therein, who is or shall be of age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years (except as is herein after excepted) shall severally and respectively be enrolled in the militia, by the Captain or Commanding Officer of the company, within whose bounds such citizen shall reside, and that within twelve months after the passing of this Act. And it shall at all time hereafter be the duty of every such Captain or Commanding Officer of a company, to enroll every such citizen as aforesaid, and also those who shall, from time to time, arrive at the age of 18 years, or being at the age of 18 years, and under the age of 45 years (except as before excepted) shall come to reside within his bounds; and shall without delay notify such citizen of the said enrollment, by the proper non-commissioned Officer of the company, by whom such notice may be proved. That every citizen, so enrolled and notified, shall, within six months thereafter, provide himself with a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack, a pouch, with a box therein, to contain not less than twenty four cartridges, suited to the bore of his musket or firelock, each cartridge to contain a proper quantity of powder and ball; or with a good rifle, knapsack, shot-pouch, and powder-horn, twenty balls suited to the bore of his rifle, and a quarter of a pound of powder; and shall appear so armed, accoutred and provided, when called out to exercise or into service, except, that when called out on company days to exercise only, he may appear without a knapsack. That the commissioned Officers shall severally be armed with a sword or hanger, and espontoon; and that from and after five years from the passing of this Act, all muskets from arming the militia as is herein required, shall be of bores sufficient for balls of the eighteenth part of a pound; and every citizen so enrolled, and providing himself with the arms, ammunition and accoutrements, required as aforesaid, shall hold the same exempted from all suits, distresses, executions or sales, for debt or for the payment of taxes.

The bolded part left out by the author states that every citizen enrolled and providing their own arms would be exempt from paying taxes past and present debts to the federal government which should have more than made up the cost for his equipment. So, basically in exchange for one's service, the federal government would offer tax amnesty. Hardly an unfunded mandate.

 

I think someone else pointed out the constitutionality argument for this as provided for Article I Sec 8 of the US Constitution....

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

 

The reason for having the militia to provide for their own equipment is Congress felt the soldier would take better care of his equipment if he had a vested interest in it. During the Revolutionary War many of the individual states provided arms and equipment to their militias to fight with the Continental Army. After hostilities ended, the equipment provided for the soldiers often ended up in disrepair due to neglect over the years following the war. This was glaringly apparent trying to get enough militiamen with working muskets and ammunition to put down Shea's Rebellion. Washington was frustrated by this, because he thought if the army couldn't put down a home grown insurrection, how could they put down another threat from abroad. This where the need for the Militia Acts of 1792 originated from. The Militia Acts were the United States' first military conscription.

 

So Republican lawyers and attorneys general around the country are preparing challenges to the healthcare reform bill on constitutional grounds, perhaps hoping that a Supreme Court majority will strike down the legislation with the same flagrant disdain for legal precedent and democratic order displayed in Bush v. Gore.

It's been 10 years and the author is still not over this......That is so sad. I'll send him an all day sucker in the mail.

You're incorrect sarge. It is absolutely an unfunded mandate. Read the clause a little more closely.

 

Here's the section at issue:

". . . every citizen so enrolled, and providing himself with the arms, ammunition and accoutrements, required as aforesaid, shall hold the same exempted from all suits, distresses, executions or sales, for debt or for the payment of taxes."

 

I'm going strictly from those words that you quoted with no other historical knowledge regarding the act. However, I understand that "the same" from that clause refers back to the items directly in front of that clause; "the arms, ammunition, and accoutrements." It's saying that the guns and ammunition purchased in accordance with the act cannot be seized by suits against the gun owners, by debt holders of the gun owners, or as payment for due taxes by the government. The reasoning and policy behind this is that the government is requiring the people to purchase guns . . . and it wants to make sure that they will have those guns ready when needed.

 

Here's my rephrasing of the quote without the legalese and the antiquated language:

". . . every citizen who was required to purchase a gun and ammunition, cannot have that gun and ammunition taken from him by suits from other citizens, or by people to whom that citizen owes debts, or as payment for owed taxes."

 

Please, show me if this is erroneous. My reading of it is that it is still an entirely unfunded mandate. You're incorrect sarge.

 

(also, I agree with your Bush v. Gore sentiments. It's over. Get over it.)

[HUSKER 37]

George Washington was a Socialist Too!

 

What?

A Founding Father was a Socialist Tool?

Well sure he may have been persuaded to mandate guns for everybody in white by special interests groups (gun makers), but I dont think you should call him a tool...uh..too? well that's different...

 

NEVERMIIIIIIND.

 

[carlfense]

I expected sarge87 to check back in here with a comment.

[sarge87]

I expected sarge87 to check back in here with a comment.

I was mistaken in my first assessment to requiring citizens to buy a product by the federal government. Actually, I was overthinking the whole deal and now it is so easy.

 

Check Article I Sec. 8 of the US Constitution of the 18 Enumerated Powers....

 

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;

 

You see, Congress does have the authority here as granted to them by the US Constitution. The Militia Act of 1792 is perfectly legal because the Constitution provided Congress the legal means for organizing and arming the Militia by whatever means necessary. If that includes requiring the Militia to purchase their own equipment then so be it.

 

How does that apply to the healthcare mandate you ask? It's simple actually. The feds will have to craft a Constitutional Amendment to authorize Congress to legislate healthcare to be voted on by the States.

 

The Interstate Commerce clause doesn't apply here because each state prohibits its citizens from buying another state's insurance coverage which is clearly intrastate commerce not the latter.

[carlfense]

I expected sarge87 to check back in here with a comment.

I was mistaken in my first assessment to requiring citizens to buy a product by the federal government. Actually, I was overthinking the whole deal and now it is so easy.

 

Check Article I Sec. 8 of the US Constitution of the 18 Enumerated Powers....

 

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;

 

You see, Congress does have the authority here as granted to them by the US Constitution. The Militia Act of 1792 is perfectly legal because the Constitution provided Congress the legal means for organizing and arming the Militia by whatever means necessary. If that includes requiring the Militia to purchase their own equipment then so be it.

 

How does that apply to the healthcare mandate you ask? It's simple actually. The feds will have to craft a Constitutional Amendment to authorize Congress to legislate healthcare to be voted on by the States.

 

The Interstate Commerce clause doesn't apply here because each state prohibits its citizens from buying another state's insurance coverage which is clearly intrastate commerce not the latter.

No. The Constitution does not specifically authorize either a gun purchase requirement or a health insurance requirement. I could just as easily argue that the general welfare clause of Art. 1 Sec. 8 allows for unfunded insurance purchasing mandates because it provides for the general welfare of the United States.

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 . . .