From B.S.O.G.:Tea Partiers, be careful what you wish for

Tea Party activist and Republicans in general are big on “original intent” when talking about the constitution. Michelle Bachman talks about it all the time.  Isn’t it Ironic that if original intent were applied…she would likely not have a vote or be in office?  There was no specified universal right to vote…that was determined by states, and most states limited it to white landowning males. There was no direct vote for senators until the 17th amendment was passed. There was no guarranteed woman’s right to vote until 1920.  The bill of rights was not part of the original constitution, and even when included, they were thought to apply only to the federal…not the states governments.

So, looking at original intent…Michell Bachman, Sarah Palin, the woman who was a witch, the lady who ran against Harry Reid…would have not been able to run or to vote….Heck, maybe original intent isn’t such a bad thing.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

25 Responses to From B.S.O.G.:Tea Partiers, be careful what you wish for

  1. Typical Liberal says:

    That article is correct – we never consider the intent of constitutional amendments in our hack pieces.

  2. Typical Conservative Knuckle Dragger says:

    Although I masterb… er… respect that Michelle Bachman a whole lot, I think it’s high time we set them women and coloreds back in their place. I support this original intent idea completely.

  3. Henry says:

    “…the woman who was a witch,

    Careful, Billy. Vert will jump all over you for “poisoning-the-well”.

  4. Bryan K says:

    Well, if we are going to cite original intent of the writers of the Constitution, then requiring everyone have health insurance must surely be constitutional. At least that’s my assumption when the founders passed the Act for the Relief of Sick and Disabled Seamen in 1798.

    • Between the lines says:

      Ah – the latest left wing radical talking point. You however are making an incorrect assumption. It’s a justification for having the VA system, not a government mandate. Keep trying!

      • Bryan K says:

        A VA system for private sailors and civilian merchants? Wow!

        Sorry, but the origins of our VA system and the ARSDS of 1798 are not even remotely related.

        Try again.

        • Between the lines says:


          “The young American republic was dependent upon the sea for both defense and commercial purposes. When American merchant ships docked in the country’s ports, questions arose as to how to provide health care for sick or injured seamen and who would pay for this care. ”

          Providing for a group of workers who served to defend the early US =/= mandating everyone in the country to buy insurance. Much like the VA, was put in place to provide medical care to those who are defending our country.

          Try again.

          • Bryan K says:

            In 1798, the United States had a burgeoning fleet that consisted of six vessels. The merchants and traders of 1798 who were required to hold health insurance were, in no way, shape, or form, enlisted to fight for the United States. To say that their required medical insurance was a pre-cursor to the VA system is a huge stretch especially considering that the VA system already existed.

          • Between the lines says:

            “To say that their required medical insurance was a pre-cursor to the VA system is a huge stretch especially considering that the VA system already existed.”

            Nobody has said that it was a precursor – just similar justifications. Try again.

          • Bryan K says:

            Um, no. The discussion here is centered around precedent. If you are straying from that point, then you are conceding.

          • Moving the Goalposts says:

            Knocking down the straw man does not equal debate victory, Bryan.

          • Bryan K says:

            It’s your straw-man that I knocked down.

          • Projection says:

            You know me well, Bryan.

    • CTRL + C, CTRL + V says:

      “This 1798 statute (5 Cong. Ch. 77, July 16, 1798, 1 Stat. 605) is currently making the blogospheric rounds as purported proof that the 2010 congressional mandate to purchase health insurance from a private company is based on long-established practice. Incorrect.

      Sections 1 and 2 of the act impose a 20 cent per month tax on seamen’s wages, to be withheld by the employer.

      Section 3 requires that all the withheld taxes be turned over to the U.S. Treasury on a quarterly basis, and that the revenue shall be expended in the district where it was collected. The revenue shall be spent to support sick and injured seamen.

      So the Act is totally dissimilar to the Obamacare mandate. In the 1798 Act, the government imposes a tax, collects all the tax revenue, and spends the revenue as it chooses. This is a good precedent for programs in which the government imposes a tax and then spends the money on medical programs (e.g., Medicare), but it has nothing to do with mandating that individuals purchase a private product.

      Under section 4, if there is a surplus in a district, the surplus shall be spent in the construction of marine hospitals; the executive may combine the tax revenue with voluntary private donations of land or money for hospital construction. The President may also receive voluntary private donations for relief of the seamen, or for operation of the hospitals.

      Section 5 instructs the President to select the directors of the marine hospitals. The directors shall make quarterly reports to the Secretary of the Treasury. The directors will be reimbursed for expenses, but will not receive other compensation.

      Today, the 1798 Act is viewed as the beginning of the creation of the U.S. Public Health Service.

      The Act is very strong precedent for the federal government imposing taxes and dedicating the tax revenue to medical care for the taxed class. Further, the government may provide the medical care directly, or may cooperate with private individuals for the providing of that care. The 1798 Act thus shows that Medicare, while vastly broader in scope than anything from the Early Republic, is generally consistent with constitutional practice of that period.

      The Act certainly did not order seamen to purchase any form of private insurance, nor did it order them to purchase any other type of private good. The Act is a solid precedent for federal involvement in health care, and no precedent at all for a federal mandate to purchase private products.”

      • Bryan K says:

        And the goalposts move yet again.

        So socialized medicine is the answer, I guess.

      • Bryan K says:

        Also thought I’d point out, whoever you are, that it’s not polite to steal other people work without properly attributing who the work belongs to.

        • Paging Vertigo says:

          Me not know how to google either.

          • Bryan K says:

            Me not know how to appropriately attribute and cite my work to avoid charges of plagiarism either.

            If you don’t have time to provide a cite, then I don’t have time to listen to your inane babblings. No cite=automatic fail.

          • Anonymous says:

            I agree, we should not waste our time on Vertigos blatant plagarism. Especially since he is guilty of far worse than of what he accuses others of. Good point, bryan, ill make a conserted effort to ignore his unattributed left wing radical hack pieces. Thanks for the tip!

          • Academic says:

            Do they use MLA for citations at Rasmussen, or is it good enough if you simply are able to color within the lines?

          • Bryan K says:

            Actually, I use both MLA and APA citations in my work. Not only do I have to know the difference, but I have to know which works call for each type of citation.

            I learned this in high school.

            On an informal blog such as this one, I don’t expect MLA or APA citations. I do, however, expect people to give credit when they use other people’s work. As I said, failure to do so is an automatic fail.

          • Not know google says:

            Welcome, Bryan.

          • Academic says:

            “I learned this in high school.”

            So they don’t teach it at Rasmussen, then?

  5. billybones says:

    I only take responsibility for posts originating from me…if it is sent to me, and i attribute it to the person who sent it to me, I claim no responsibility.
    As has been aptly demonstrated, I am perfectly willing to claim responsibility for what I think.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.