A post the other day at Jonathan Turley, written by a “guest blogger” reports that the very first Congress in 1790 passed a law requiring that ships buy medical insurance for their seaman, and in 1798 passed a law requiring seamen to buy hospital insurance for themselves, and wonders why these laws were not argued in defending the individual mandate in Obama’s “health care reform” law. I must admit that I’m having a little bit of fun shooting these ducks sitting in these barrels.
One: the first was a law requiring employers to insure their employees, which is not even remotely the same as requiring individuals to insure themselves, merely because both laws are about insurance. Two: the fact that Congress passed a law is irrelevant in arguing a case in court. If either law had been challenged and upheld in court, then the court’s ruling on that law would be a valid argument; any law itself is not, because the cited law itself could be unconstitutional if no court had ever ruled on it.
He goes on to cite the law requiring every man to own a firearm, and says that is not a mandate to purchase a product because the firearm could be a gift, inheritance or could be borrowed. Likewise the health insurance required by the ACA could be a gift or be provided on a parent’s policy and is therefor not a purchase mandate. Oh please. In either case, someone had to purchase the damned insurance.
I’m not saying whether the mandate is or is not constitutional, I do not know, but these arguments are getting more and more lame.