Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

General Discussion

pinto

(106,886 posts)

1. Great find.

Reply to pnwmom (Original post)

Fri Jun 15, 2012, 02:29 PM

Jun 2012

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

33 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

If a health insurance mandate is unconstitutional, why did George Washington sign one in 1790? [View all] pnwmom Jun 2012 OP

Great find. pinto Jun 2012 #1

Thanks. I was glad to see that the Professor sent this in after the oral arguments. pnwmom Jun 2012 #2

The only thing that makes a difference is what their owners tell them. Sirveri Jun 2012 #24

And John Adams signed the Sedition Act in 1798 kenny blankenship Jun 2012 #3

This law didn't "get past" Congress. It was legislated by Congress. pnwmom Jun 2012 #4

Difference is those insurances and mandates were related to a choice, one cannot Lionessa Jun 2012 #7

Also the "mandate" this professor is speaking of required those ship owners to buy insurance Uncle Joe Jun 2012 #9

Where in the article does it say that? And does it also say that the mandate pnwmom Jun 2012 #13

And how would you feel if this mandate was re-vitalized? Lionessa Jun 2012 #15

I would argue that the requirement was stupid. But that wouldn't make it unconstitutional. pnwmom Jun 2012 #17

I argue both are unconstitutional and since one is clearly no longer upheld, I think using it as an Lionessa Jun 2012 #18

This isn't stated in your article, this is The New Republic after-all, but this same Uncle Joe Jun 2012 #19

x2 AnotherMcIntosh Jun 2012 #6

Different, this was a specific insurance for a particular industry Lionessa Jun 2012 #5

The point is that there have been many similar mandates in the past, and they have never been pnwmom Jun 2012 #10

The point is THEY ARE NOT SIMILAR. The others are based on a choice, being alive isn't a choice. Lionessa Jun 2012 #12

They ARE similar, according to this Harvard law professor, because both situations pnwmom Jun 2012 #14

Then he or she is an idiot in my opinion. Lionessa Jun 2012 #16

Thanks for the well-thought out, considered opinion. pnwmom Jun 2012 #20

Some POV don't need a verbose explanation for most, are you requiring an explanation Lionessa Jun 2012 #21

He was just one of our founding fathers SoutherDem Jun 2012 #8

K&R drm604 Jun 2012 #11

You are not referencing an individual mandate no punishing inactivity TheKentuckian Jun 2012 #22

You didn't read the article. A few years later, pnwmom Jun 2012 #25

This is simply the car insurance argument redrawn, MadHound Jun 2012 #23

A few years later, there was a mandate for individuals to purchase hospitalization insurance. pnwmom Jun 2012 #26

Mandating the purchase of insurance for your employees is WAY different. OneTenthofOnePercent Jun 2012 #27

If you had read further, you'd have seen that there were also individual mandates. pnwmom Jun 2012 #32

Once again.. choose to participate in a profession and accept regulations in that industry. OneTenthofOnePercent Jun 2012 #33

Why don't we have Medicare For All? n/t leftstreet Jun 2012 #28

Because it couldn't pass Congress. Even this barely passed Congress. n/t pnwmom Jun 2012 #31

You actually had to own a ship and hire seamen. Zalatix Jun 2012 #29

No, there were several different mandates, including ones that covered individuals. pnwmom Jun 2012 #30

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»If a health insurance man...»Reply #1