HCR -- The Original Individual Mandate, Circa 1792

By John Ballard

State and local politicians all across the country are trying to score points by arguing that the federal gubmint has no right to compel people to buy anything. Health insurance, for example. Looks like even a law student knows better.

Via a Maggie Mahar tweet...

Bradley Latino is a third-year student at Seton Hall Law School and a guest blogger at Health Reform Watch. He graduated cum laude from Butler University in 2005, where he majored in literature. He is currently working with the New Jersey Appleseed Public Interest Law Center on an overview of potential conflicts between New Jersey private health insurance regulation and the newly-passed federal law.

The Militia Acts of 1792, passed by the Second Congress and signed into law by President Washington, required every able-bodied white male citizen to enroll in his state�s militia and mandated that he �provide himself� with various goods for the common weal:

• ?[E]ach and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective States . . . shall severally and respectively be enrolled in the militia . . . .provid[ing] himself with a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack, a pouch, with a box therein . . . and shall appear so armed, accoutred and provided, when called out to exercise or into service
  

This was the law of the land until the establishment of the National Guard in 1903. For many American families, compliance meant purchasing-and eventually re-purchasing-multiple muskets from a private party.

This was no small thing. Although anywhere from 40 to 79% of American households owned a firearm of some kind, the Militia Act specifically required a military-grade musket. That particular kind of gun was useful for traditional, line-up-and-shoot 18th century warfare, but clumsy and inaccurate compared to the single-barrel shotguns and rifles Americans were using to hunt game. A new musket, alone, could cost anywhere from $250 to $500 in today�s money. Some congressmen estimated it would cost �20 to completely outfit a man for militia service-about $2,000 today.

Perhaps the most surprising aspect of the militia mandate is how uncontroversial it was. For instance, although the recently-ratified Bill of Rights was certainly fresh on Congress� mind, not one of militia reform�s many opponents thought to argue the mandate was a government taking of property for public use. Nor did anyone argue it to be contrary to States� rights under the Tenth Amendment. Rather, the mandate was criticized as an unfair burden upon the poor, who were asked to pay the same amount to arm themselves as the rich. Indeed, the Militia Acts did nothing to defray costs, although a few years later Congress did appropriate funds to pay militia members for the use of their time and goods-in effect subsidizing the purchases.

��

Incidentally there is still discussion of a public option, a great alternative to private insurance. But the same people who don't want to compel anyone to insure themselves find a public option even more repellent.