Too Bad

[babe]

Forcing people to buy products is catching on:

Five South Dakota lawmakers have introduced legislation that would require any adult 21 or older to buy a firearm “sufficient to provide for their ordinary self-defense.”

The bill, which would take effect Jan. 1, 2012, would give people six months to acquire a firearm after turning 21. The provision does not apply to people who are barred from owning a firearm.

https://www.argusleader.com/article...1/Bill-would-require-all-S-D-citizens-buy-gun

Looks like a gag to me. Those legislators know they won't have a thousand BigPharma/Rockefeller lobbyist flock workin' the legislators around to support it.

Along this line, why don't we have a Federal Education Initiative to require parents to buy a hundred pencils for elementary children, and a computer for every kid.

Say, how about a new draft law requiring folks filing joint tax returns to produce a child for the State, to be raised by the Gov and dedicated to Military Service ala Sparta.

How about a new law requiring body mass indices for everybody and maybe some kind of standard treatment for the obese????? oh, that was in Obamacare?????

Obama would probably be enthusiastic about requiring all homes to be retrofitted with GE-produced green energy windmills and solar panels. I bet GE would throw a few mil in the campaign coffer for his next run.

nah. sometimes our cures are worse than our diseases. No way do we really want our gov acting on every supposedly good cause by taking over our decisions and our care.

 

[sirkickyass]

Forcing people to buy products is catching on:

Five South Dakota lawmakers have introduced legislation that would require any adult 21 or older to buy a firearm “sufficient to provide for their ordinary self-defense.”

The bill, which would take effect Jan. 1, 2012, would give people six months to acquire a firearm after turning 21. The provision does not apply to people who are barred from owning a firearm.

https://www.argusleader.com/article...1/Bill-would-require-all-S-D-citizens-buy-gun

Psssh. They're 200 years late to the "you must buy a gun" party. Congress did that in 1792.

https://www.constitution.org/mil/mil_act_1792.htm

E]ach and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective States . . . shall severally and respectively be enrolled in the militia . . . .provid[ing] himself with a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack, a pouch, with a box therein . . . and shall appear so armed, accoutred and provided, when called out to exercise or into service.

This was on the books until the National Guard was established in 1903.

And that was a no joke purchase too. Check it out: https://www.healthreformwatch.com/2010/07/20/the-original-individual-mandate-circa-1792/

Further evidence modern conservatism is far to the right of the government envisioned by the consensus of the founding fathers that they so lionize (as opposed to Thomas Jefferson, who does not individually represent the entirety of thought during that period of time.)

 

[PearlWatson]

Further evidence modern conservatism is far to the right of the government envisioned by the consensus of the founding fathers that they so lionize (as opposed to Thomas Jefferson, who does not individually represent the entirety of thought during that period of time.)

Yeah, they are WAY right since they want to make everyone buy a gun in their state instead of just the "able bodied white dudes." I'll bet the natives are exempt though.

 

[PearlWatson]

Judge is mad @ being ignored by Obama:

"Judge Vinson Clarifies Florida Ruling, Maintains That Entire Health Care Law Is Unconstitutional -- In a harshly worded opinion, Judge Roger Vinson, the Florida federal judge who struck down the entire health care law in January, gave the [regime] seven days from today to appeal his ruling with the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals. ... In the [20-page] ruling Vinson is critical of Justice Department lawyers for waiting nearly two weeks before filing a 'motion to clarify.'

He reiterated his finding that the Congress exceeded its authority when it passed the individual mandate and said that because the mandate was unseverable from the rest of the Act the entire legislation was void. He said that his order applied to all parts of the law, including those provisions currently in effect.

He said he had expected the government lawyers to immediately seek a stay of the ruling.

“It was not expected” he wrote, “that they would effectively ignore the order and declaratory judgment for two and one-half weeks, continue to implement the Act, and only then file a belated motion to “clarify.”

Legal experts say the chances are high that the appeals court will grant the administration’s motion to stay Vinson’s ruling pending appeal.

Vinson acknowledged the issue will ultimately end up before the Supreme Court and he said parties should move with haste. “The sooner this issue is finally decided by the Supreme Court, “ he wrote, “the better off the entire nation will be.”

https://blogs.abcnews.com/political...tire-health-care-law-is-unconstitutional.html

 

[babe]

Judge is mad @ being ignored by Obama:


https://blogs.abcnews.com/political...tire-health-care-law-is-unconstitutional.html

Vinson has done all he has power to do. The higher powers will just ignore him for as long as it takes for everybody to not care anymore. Obviously, Obama's strategists are not in a hurry to get to the Supreme Court, and they know that time is on their side, and they need to get one more favorable judge appointed to the Supreme Court. They think they can stil do it.

 

[VINYLONE]

Vinson has done all he has power to do. The higher powers will just ignore him for as long as it takes for everybody to not care anymore. Obviously, Obama's strategists are not in a hurry to get to the Supreme Court, and they know that time is on their side, and they need to get one more favorable judge appointed to the Supreme Court. They think they can stil do it.

Solid post. This is the way I take it as well... The judicial process, I would surmise, moves like a tanker...

 

[PearlWatson]

"If the government can do this, what else can it ... do?” Scalia asked.

https://www.latimes.com/news/politi...lth-insurance-mandate-20120327,0,423592.story

 

[Stoked]

"If the government can do this, what else can it ... do?” Scalia asked.

https://www.latimes.com/news/politi...lth-insurance-mandate-20120327,0,423592.story

I predict a 5-4 against the bill.

 

[TroutBum]

"Virtually everyone in society is in this market,” said Verrilli, who was prodded on by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg and other liberal justices. That means that if someone elects not to get health insurance but then gets sick, as everyone will, that person will pass along costs to everyone else, Verrilli explained.

This. But whatever you morons want to do is fine by me. I'd like to know how this is any different than the government mandating that you have automobile insurance? Why doesn't anyone ever gripe about that?

 

[Gameface]

This. But whatever you morons want to do is fine by me. I'd like to know how this is any different than the government mandating that you have automobile insurance? Why doesn't anyone ever gripe about that?

I'm not going to make the broccoli argument, but we are all in the food market and for some reason we don't all pool our money to make sure everyone has food.

Health insurance and medical care are two different things.

Do your girls have an auto insurance policy? My 26 year old brother in law doesn't have auto insurance...because he doesn't drive. If he takes the action of getting a licence and getting a car he will be required to take the action of getting auto insurance. Until he acts he isn't required to do anything.

 

[franklin]

This. But whatever you morons want to do is fine by me. I'd like to know how this is any different than the government mandating that you have automobile insurance? Why doesn't anyone ever gripe about that?

Driving is not an inherent right but living is.
Driving puts the lives of others at risk. Living doesn't.

The government doesn't own us, we own it. A government that can force you to buy the wares of its best paying lobbyists owns you. A justice branch that declares this mandate constitutional is no longer a justice branch. Then again, the sitting tyrant liberal justices who believe they have the authority to look at international law for settling internal, constitutional matters have already turned the SCOTUS into half of a joke machine.

 

[candrew]

Driving is not an inherent right but living is.
Driving puts the lives of others at risk. Living doesn't.

The government doesn't own us, we own it. A government that can force you to buy the wares of its best paying lobbyists owns you. A justice branch that declares this mandate constitutional is no longer a justice branch. Then again, the sitting tyrant liberal justices who believe they have the authority to look at international law for settling internal, constitutional matters have already turned the SCOTUS into half of a joke machine.

You can choose not to drive. I've known people (especially in NYC) who went their entire lives without driving a car.

I guarantee you at several times in your life you will need health care - there is no choice involved. And on at least one or two of those occassions it will be very, very expensive. If you're not covered and you're broke someone will have to pay for it.