Tag Archives: Individual Mandate

The Gun Mandate

We all live in a dangerous world.  Crime all around us.  We spend untold amounts of money keeping ourselves safe.  It might be stronger locks on our doors, cameras in the roof, alarm systems in the house.

I have a safe; two even.

And then we spend money on public infrastructure.  We pay the local police, the state police and even federal law enforcement officials.

Given that private ownership of guns reduces crime, and that we are all living in a crime market, I would like to see the federal government mandate gun ownership.


Health Care Mandate: Where Does It End

Very soon the Obama administration is going to argue before the Supreme Court that the United States Government is able to mandate the purchase of a private good.  In this case, health insurance.  The reason, as defined by the administration, is that by not purchasing insurance, millions of Americans will transfer untold billions in health care costs to others.

The idea is that to provide basic health services to everyone, the government is able to mandate insurance because it relates to “citizen’s health.”

When faced with arguments like this in the past by supporters of the health care bill and the individual mandate, I’ve asked where the government would draw the line.  Further, I’ve asked for specifics on what the nature of a blueberry mandate and the health care mandate would be.

No answer.  However, I am happy to see that I am not alone in my musings.

Continue reading

A Thought Occurred To Me

The bedrock principle that the authors of Obamacare used to legally justify the federal government regulating health insurance is the “Commerce Clause”.  Basically, this clause states that the federal government has the right to regulate all interstate trade to ensure that the economic interests of America are met.

Except, health insurance is not allowed to be sold across state lines.

It’s not inTER-state trade.  In’s inTRA-state trade.

Ahhh….but I forgot.

Wickard v. Filburn, 317 U.S. 111 (1942), was a U.S. Supreme Court decision that dramatically increased the power of the federal government to regulate economic activity. A farmer, Roscoe Filburn, was growing wheat to feed his chickens. The U.S. government had imposed limits on wheat production based on acreage owned by a farmer, in order to drive up wheat prices during the Great Depression, and Filburn was growing more than the limits permitted. Filburn was ordered to destroy his crops and pay a fine, even though he was producing the excess wheat for his own use and had no intention of selling it.

The Supreme Court, interpreting the United States Constitution’s Commerce Clause under Article 1 Section 8 (which permits the United States Congress “To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;”) decided that, because Filburn’s wheat growing activities reduced the amount of wheat he would buy for chicken feed on the open market, and because wheat was traded nationally, Filburn’s production of more wheat than he was allotted was affecting interstate commerce, and so could be regulated by the federal government.

Long ago the Leftists felt that they had the answer to the Great Depression.  And they passed many laws intended to help us through this great time.  However, they were illegal laws and the Supreme Court struck them down.

Then FDR:

…sought to counter this entrenched opposition to his political agenda by expanding the number of justices in order to create a pro-New Deal majority on the bench.

{His} legislation was unveiled on February 5, 1937 and was the subject, on March 9, 1937, of one of Roosevelt’s Fireside chats. Shortly after the radio address, on March 29, the Supreme Court published its opinion upholding a Washington state minimum wage law in West Coast Hotel Co. v. Parrish by a 5–4 ruling, after Associate Justice Owen Roberts had joined with the wing of the bench more sympathetic to the New Deal.

So, because FDR was a thief who stole the right of a citizen from growing enough wheat to feed his animals, we now have to live through a law that seeks to regulate inter-state trade of a commodity that is illegal to sell inter-state.