Apr 8, 2010

After intensive search ‘Manoogian’ Mike finds a lawyer to support his grandstand lawsuit


Michigan Attorney General and Republican Gubernatorial Candidate ‘Manoogian’ Mike Cox’s grandstand play to gain the votes of the extremists that control the Republican Party with his lawsuit challenging the constitutionally of the health care insurance reform bill signed into law by the President is going no where.

Multiple provisions of the Constitution permit Congress to enact this reform legislation, including the Commerce Clause, and legal experts, including conservative scholars, are therefore uniformly saying that any lawsuit to stop it will undoubtedly fail. But Cox and the 12 Republican AG’s scoured the country to find a legal scholar to back up their shaky position. After searching high and low, they found one: Randy Barnett of Georgetown University.

He has been making the rounds of media outlets all over the country trying to make the case for Cox and company. The problem is Barnett is a rightwing tool, and not one media outlet even talks about his affiliations. Jared Goldberg at A Jared Manifesto lays it out.

“He's an attorney In short, Barnett is a libertarian loon. When he was at Boston University's law school, he served as an adviser to the Federalist Society, a right wing law school organization "dedicated to reforming the current legal order" in a right wing image.
Currently, he serves as a fellow at the Cato Institute and the Goldwater Institute. In 2009, he proposed a "Bill of Federalism", a set of ten amendments to the Constitution which, in effect, would codify libertarian and conservative beliefs.”

One constant refrain we are hearing from the right on health insurance reform is that citizens have never had to purchase something as a condition of citizenship or that the government required you to buy something. If you ignore the fact that you can be ticketed by the police for not having auto insurance, there’s something called the Militia Act of 1792.

The act says:
“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.”

Clearly, the government required you to purchase something with the phrase “That every citizen,” but where was the hue and cry and “tea parties?”

People pushing for unrestricted access to guns use the act to justify their position. But the citizen-militia was replaced by the Militia Act of 1903, which established the National Guard as the chief body of organized military reserves in the United States.

5 comments:

Not Anonymous said...

Once again, you post half truths. Yes, you quoted a portion of the Militia Act of 1792. But you didn't quote any of the ten sections. The first of which says,"Section 1. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That whenever the United States shall be invaded, or be in imminent danger of invasion from any foreign nation or Indian tribe, it shall be lawful for the President of the United States, to call forth such number of the militia of the state or states most convenient to the place of danger or scene of action as he may judge necessary to repel such invasion, and to issue his orders for that purpose, to such officer or officers of the militia as he shall think proper; and in case of an insurrection in any state, against the government thereof, it shall be lawful for the President of the United States, on application of the legislature of such state, or of the executive (when the legislature cannot be convened) to call forth such number of the militia of any other state or states, as may be applied for, or as he may judge sufficient to suppress such insurrection."

This entire act is regarding an invasion of our country. This was the state military in those days.

Regarding your completely false argument about being required to buy auto insurance, once again, you're not required to buy auto insurance UNLESS you choose to drive a car. A person without a drivers license is not required to buy auto insurance. A person with a drivers license that doesn't own a car is not forced to buy auto insurance. In other words, the auto insurance doesn't kick in until you get behind the wheel of the car you own.

Secondly, on car insurance, this is not a federal law, it's a state law. States require it. Not the federal government.

Not Anonymous said...

Oh, and by the way. it's not 12 attorneys general. It's 20 states. Not all attorneys general and not all Republican. There is one Democrat from Louisiana that joined the group.

There are some Democrat Attorneys General that refuse to protect the citizens of their states and not file in this lawsuit. In those instances, the Governors are beginning their own lawsuits. Such as in Arizona and Nevada and Michigan.

Communications guru said...

Sorry, anonymous, it’s the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. Whether I posted the entire act or not does not matter. The fact remains that the government is requiring every citizen to purchase something as a condition of citizenship, and that makes Cox’s grandstanding case moot. It seems to me the section you quoted only states when the militia can be called out. Its so-called gun rights advocates and the militia that makes the case that every male age 17-45 is in the militia, not me.

Once again, the government is compelling you to buy something, and if you don’t there is a penalty. Whether it’s the federal government or the state government is irreverent.

Communications guru said...

I’ll stick to the 12 AGs. It’s the 38 Democratic AG’s that are protecting the well-being of their citizens and not wasting scarce tax dollars on something settled in 1865.

Johnny C said...

What captain Douche is doing is beyond grandstanding Cox is using tax payers' money to fund a lawsuit he even knows is going to get struck down at the end..

Not one legal scholar has not jumped aboard the it's unconstitutional bandwagon. But I'm sure Not is going to find a few nut job right wing lawyers to say it but the major disagree with them.

This isn't about the constitution not anonymous because you conservatives proved you didn't care about it for the last eight years when George W.Bush was taking White Out to it.

This is about firing up the tea bag losers for the midterms and these Republican Attorney Generals are trying to make a name for themselves at tax payer expense.