Am I missing something? Is Rick Ungar really comparing a mandatory fee on a particular industry (one entered into voluntarily by citizens otherwise unaffected by the “individual mandate”) — one that soon after became a part of the military (the Merchant Marines), to boot — to a federal law requiring all citizens to purchase a particular product from a private vendor, as directed by the federal government?
And is Greg Sargent really pretending he’s understood the article? (Sargent suggests the law levied a “tax” on these sailors; Ungar claims it wasn’t a tax. In the current debate on a health care mandate, the Obama Administration told us it isn’t a tax while arguing in court that it is. Had the legislation been passed as a tax, proceeding from the House, presumably we’d be having a different debate.)
Discuss.
Also, per Ungar:
Let me add one more thing – I agree completely that since we really can’t fully know all the intent that went into the Constitution, we should focus on the best reading of it. However, is it fair to say that the best reading of it can only happen when we keep it relevant to today’s applications, taking into consideration that life is very different than it was in the early 18th century?
For what should be obvious reasons to regular readers of this site, here we have the gist of Ungar’s actual argument.
The rest is shiny bits festooned to the argument to keep your eyes off the dull machinery behind it.
(h/t JHo)
Y’know, I despise shit like this.
Indeed.
Oh, if only the delegates to the Constitutional Convention had kept notes or something, or engaged in some manner of public debate on its merits as it was being ratified. How short-sighted of them!
dirty socialists are remarkably picky and choosey about which maritime laws are respectable
life is very different than it was in the early 18th century
Indeed. That was the case aas early as the late 18th century.
If only there was some constitutional mechanism for amending the Constitution!
So the left bobs and weaves. The Framing Socialists.
Speaking of calling things what they are:
Apparently the hilljack snowbilly — with the scant, unqualifying experience of being Governor — somehow got the word out to all the voting hilljack snowbillies and may just have pressed the debate into overdrive.
That might be one of the most disingenuous aggressively mendoucheous defenses of Beelzebub Obumblefucks health care takeover I have seen in a while. At least since the deficit neutral claims, or the claims that repealing it will increase the deficit. Not spending billions and trillions of dollars will increase the deficit. Inactivity is activity. If you like your insurance, ou will be able to keep it.
But Jeff, in the spirit of medical originalism, we agree but require them to acknowledge that the government can only pay for that medical treatment available in 1798. Leaches, bleedings, and herbal poultices are relatively cheap. So win win.
And wait till you see the George Washington dental health plan!
Anyone guess that the founding generations were well on their way to absorbing and understanding that 1776 document on political economy by 1789? I’d bet they were.
A commenter gets in a devastating blow early in the comments, to wit:
Typical of lefty “intellectuals” everywhere, Ungar ignores the argument and focuses on the commenter’s use of “Nazi” elsewhere in the comment.
Ad hominem to the end, amirite?
The law in question not only didn’t place a mandate on individual sailors (leaving that duty upon the operator or owner), but it specifically was limited to international (not just inter- or even intra-state) commerce. That’s clearly within Congress’ purview under Article I’s enumerated powers.
Furthermore, the lying liar claims it was a “1%” levy on those sailors’ wages, when in fact it was a flat $.20/mo. I really doubt that sailors only made $20/mo. even back then. But even if that were the average, he’s stating it as if it were tied to income.
[…] industry (one entered into voluntarily by citizens otherwise unaffected …Read the full story here Previous Topic: Republicans Hide Health Care Law Benefits From Their Constituents […]
Hospitals in 1798 were not privately owned and operated. They were, universally, the result if the confluence of industrialization in urban centers and were operated, usually by cities, occasionally by states. It was common for the funds to come from the collection of taxes on the residents of those cities and the practice was known as public charity. There was no such thing as private health insurance.
One objection raised in debate was that many sailors, who live in cities that have such institutions, would be paying for their share of public charity twice.
The Congress, with this law, displayed a lack of imagination–simply carrying forward the model fo the time to the Federal level. I might also point out that te 5th Congress had a decidedly statist bent anyway–these were the men who formulated and passed the Alien and Sedition Acts.
At least, Senatory Varnum of Massachusetts, did raise Constitutional questions in debate, though I haven’t found where anyone answered his concerns.
Senate Dems vote down Obamacare repeal, party line vote. Ben Nelson sounds a bit scared at the end of the piece.
It was Bill, but yes, your comment applies just as well geoffb.
This fellow ignores the fact that the merchant marine were quasi-military before the US government even existed. The Continental Congress issued letters of marque to merchant captains during the US revolution.
[…] “Congress Passes Socialized Medicine and Mandates Health Insurance … […]
The Continental Congress issued letters of marque to merchant captains during the US revolution.
Remember this the next time some anti-gun zealot rhetorically asks if you think you should be allowed to have your own personal howitzer.
“If I can have cannon on my ship, then why not in my yard?”
I thought Ungar was much funnier in The Odd Couple.