Most Read
    Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

    Now they want judicial restraint?

    Now they want judicial restraint?

    From The NY Times Editors on why the Supreme Court should leave the Obamacare mandate alone:

    All of these issues are best resolved in the political system, not the courts. The Supreme Court ought to show judicial restraint, adhere to precedent and uphold the constitutionality of health care reform.

    What a strange, convenient notion of judicial restraint.  Should that restraint also apply when the next Congress passes the guns and tobacco mandate?

    DONATE

    Donations tax deductible
    to the full extent allowed by law.

    Tags:

    Comments



     
     0 
     
     0
    jamesmonrovia | November 15, 2011 at 10:59 pm

    At the same time, I would like to see more questions to Newt Gingrich regarding his apparent hostility towards the federal judiciary. He seems so against the individual mandate, and yet his comments on Face the Nation would suggest that he’d be disappointed if the Supreme Court invalidated the Congress’ will regarding health care. http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2011/10/09/ftn/main20117838.shtml


     
     0 
     
     0
    Zacchaeus | November 15, 2011 at 11:58 pm

    Here’s a little more “ammo” for your guns and tobacco mandate scenario. http://www.guns.com/how-ammunition-is-helping-to-save-the-us-economy.html

    Guns and Tobacco mandate? You mean a gun mandate like this one? See http://www.constitution.org/mil/mil_act_1792.htm , the Militia Act of 1792. Was this ever declared unconstitutional?

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, That each and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective States, resident therein, who is or shall be of age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years (except as is herein after excepted) shall severally and respectively be enrolled in the militia, by the Captain or Commanding Officer of the company, within whose bounds such citizen shall reside, and that within twelve months after the passing of this Act. … That every citizen, so enrolled and notified, shall, within six months thereafter, provide himself with a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack, a pouch, with a box therein, to contain not less than twenty four cartridges, suited to the bore of his musket or firelock, each cartridge to contain a proper quantity of powder and ball; or with a good rifle, knapsack, shot-pouch, and powder-horn, twenty balls suited to the bore of his rifle, and a quarter of a pound of powder; and shall appear so armed, accoutred and provided, when called out to exercise or into service, except, that when called out on company days to exercise only, he may appear without a knapsack. That the commissioned Officers shall severally be armed with a sword or hanger, and espontoon; and that from and after five years from the passing of this Act, all muskets from arming the militia as is herein required, shall be of bores sufficient for balls of the eighteenth part of a pound; and every citizen so enrolled, and providing himself with the arms, ammunition and accoutrements, required as aforesaid, shall hold the same exempted from all suits, distresses, executions or sales, for debt or for the payment of taxes.

    Let me tell you something, folks – a lead ball that weighs 1/18 of a pound is a .637 caliber ball. That’ll ruin your day. Let’s have every citizen (not just the white and male ones) be required to have a .64 caliber rifle. I think that’s a heck of an idea.


     
     0 
     
     0
    tomesnyder | November 16, 2011 at 1:20 pm

    To RonF, From Wikipedia:

    The militias were divided into “divisions, brigades, regiments, battalions, and companies” as the state legislatures would direct.[5] The provisions of the first Act governing the calling up of the militia by the President in case of invasion or obstruction to law enforcement were continued in the second Act.[6] Court martial proceedings were authorized by the statute against militia members who disobeyed orders.[7]
    These Militia Acts were amended by the Militia Act of 1862, which allowed African-Americans to serve in the militias of the United States. They were replaced by the Militia Act of 1903, which established the United States National Guard as the chief body of organized military reserves in the United States.


    Leave a Comment

    Leave a Reply

    You must be logged in to post a comment.

    Notify me of followup comments via e-mail (or subscribe without commenting.)

    Font Resize
    Contrast Mode
    Send this to a friend