South Dakota GOP Mandates Gun Ownership as a Joke, But leaves Door Open for the Individual Mandate

Earlier this week, the South Dakota State Legislature introduced House Bill 1237. HB 1237 would mandate all South Dakotans to purchase a firearm of their liking for  self defense at the beginning of 2012. The only exclusions to gun ownership would be criminals that are not allowed to have them by law. This story broke in the South Dakota's Argus Leader and in local liberal blog The Madville Times on Monday. The national websites at Talking Points Memo and Politico picked up the story on Tuesday. All of the comments from the local sites and national sites show people upset with this law. When asked by the Argus Leader, State Representative Hal Wicks sponsor of the bill stated, "we do not believe the federal government can order every citizen to buy health insurance." Later on Wicks said that this bill was a joke, which did not sit well with many South Dakotans who are worrying about a 107 million dollar deficit shortfall. This joke by these state legislators brings and interesting discussion about the Individual Mandate.

The point of their failed exercise was to prove that the Individual Mandate is Unconstitutional, but they forgot that state governments are different than the Federal Government. The first item that they are not aware of is that state governments are allowed to have Individual Mandates. An example of this is automobile insurance, which every state requires of automobile owners to have the insurance or these owners have to pay a fine. It is mandated by the state that automobile owners are required to have the insurance. This gun law like the automobile insurance law is created by the state regulated by the state.  Therefore there is no correlation between South Dakota's Gun law and the National Healthcare Law. This attempt by these Legislators failed miserably.

Since these legislators were looking to make an example of how in their view that the Individual Mandate was Unconstitutional, lets give them another example how the Individual Mandate is Constitutional and employed by our Founding Fathers. One example is the Militia Act of 1792 signed into law by George Washington on May 8, 1792.  In the organization of the Militia by the Militia Act of 1792 required white males between 18 and 45 to join a militia and be able to supply themselves with the necessary equipment. As seen here in section one:

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. And it shall at all time hereafter be the duty of every such Captain or Commanding Officer of a company, to enroll every such citizen as aforesaid, and also those who shall, from time to time, arrive at the age of 18 years, or being at the age of 18 years, and under the age of 45 years (except as before excepted) shall come to reside within his bounds; and shall without delay notify such citizen of the said enrollment, by the proper non-commissioned Officer of the company, by whom such notice may be proved. 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...

As section one reads,"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."  The only people that were considered citizens at this time were white landed males over the age of eighteen, which this law mandated their military service. This is one example, but playing devils advocate we can argue that this does not require people to buy things. Now if you read further into the act, you can find where the government mandates its citizens to purchase items. As it mandates their militiamen to supply their own supplies for training. This can be seen again in section one:

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.

This is an mandate by the United States Government for its citizens at the time were required to purchase items for military service. Clearly the United States Government created an Individual Mandate to its citizens and required them to purchase the necessary means for militia service.

The Militia Act of 1792 was repealed with the Militia Act of 1903, because of the need to update standards and to add Federal funding to state militias. Not to argue that the requirement of militiamen to supply their own equipment was Unconstitutional. No one had challenged the Militia Act of 1792 in the 111 years of existence. It had been amended, but no one challenged the Constitutionality of the requirement for militiamen to obtain their own supplies for military service. Overall, this Individual Mandate was unchallenged and accepted. 

The Individual Mandate will be argued until the Supreme Court makes their ruling. Both sides will try to make their own points in the matter.  As the South Dakota Legislators tried to make a point, and my blog post is an attempt to counter their argument. I have tried to provide accurate evidence that back up my points with respectable links. Hopefully, this will be resolved soon.

Is the work of the Civil Rights Movement Deteriorating?

Today is Martin Luther King Day a day of remembrance of the struggles that people endured to provide civil rights to a majority of Americans. Martin Luther King Day was created in 1983 by an act of  Congress and signed by Ronald Regan on November 2, 1983. It officially became a Federal Holiday on January 20, 1986. After it became a federal holiday, it took 14 years before every state in the Union officially made it a holiday.  Most states in the transition had a holiday of remembrance on this day, but did not officially call it Martin Luther King Day.

The Civil Rights Movement was a successful in eliminating discrimination starting in schools and then moving to human rights and then voting rights promised in the 14th and 15th amendment. These were great strides in American civic culture. Now it is under attack. Many Tea Parties have tried to turn back time. Granted they have not repealed the 14th and 15th amendment, but they are taking small steps to change these rights given to all by the Civil Rights Movement.

One  example of this is happening in Wake School District in Raleigh, North Carolina. According to an article in the Washington Post , Wake School District is doing some dramatic engineering to its school selection process. The new Tea Party backed Republican School Board has decided to throw out the diversity standards to the district. What is surprising about this, is that Wake School District is a district that is known their success in integration. Wake School District had the policy of integration to  make sure that all students had an equal opportunity. This policy was enacted in 1970 for racial integration and then in 2000 they changed it from racial integration to economic integration.

Now with the change in the school board and some parents concerns, the school board is decided to remove the diversity policy.  School Board Chairman Ron Margiotta stated about the changes, "if the result is a handful of high-poverty schools, he said, perhaps that will better serve the most challenged students." The new boards idea is that students should be able to go to the schools closest to their place of residence. What happens is that students will not be integrated. Pockets of public schools in the district will be better off than others. This plan will set up separations of economic status.

Separation of economic status is violates Brown v. Education 1954. A quote from Chief Justice Warren's Majority Opinion  that  can apply to this situation:

Segregation of white and colored children in public schools has a detrimental effect upon the colored children. The impact is greater when it has the sanction of the law, for the policy of separating the races is usually interpreted as denoting the inferiority of the negro group. A sense of inferiority affects the motivation of a child to learn. Segregation with the sanction of law, therefore, has a tendency to [retard] the educational and mental development of negro children and to deprive them of some of the benefits they would receive in a racial[ly] integrated school system.

Now white is replaced with rich and colored is replaced with poor this statement would still be true. Many studies have have shown that when students in poverty are consolidated in a school the outcome is not benefitical for the students that attend the school. It is important for intergration for the success of all students.

The importnace of  Martin Luther King Day is to remember where we came from and not to repeat it. Moves like this done by the new Wake School Board move us backwards instead of forward. The new civil right movement is not of race, but of economic status. For all of us to be the most productive in society we need to intergrate our schools for the common civic good.  On Martin Luther King Day please look at yourself and society work together to make a better country.




P.S.: So everyone remembers what King said on the Mall on Washington here is the I Have a Dream Speech.

Martin Luther King - I Have A Dream @ Yahoo! Video