clause. doesn t the constitution give congress the power to tax and spend for the general welfare under article one, section 8, so they can go the tax route here and say, this is therefore constitutional? well, the congress you have a point there, of course, if the congress were simply taxing people, as they are for a variety of other things including highways and the military and everything else we do, sure they can use the tax power for that. but, still the only certain things the congress can regulate, that is this has to be approached through the commerce clause and is not a taxing question. gregg: there is precedent and with all due respect to john kroger, the attorney general he was wrong inciting the case as precedent and the bitter precedents was the militia act of 1792. signed by president george washington and mandated each new recruit show up with weapons and
could defend itself if invaded as it was in 1812. the militia act had nothing to do with commerce. so ms. fredrickson with all due respect was misleading you. today it became clear in the supreme court that most of the justices are extremely skeptical of obama care. here the government is saying that the federal government has a duty to tell the individual citizen that it must act. and that is different from what we have in previous cases. and that changes the relationship of the federal government to the individual in a very fundamental way. bill: in other words, if obama care is allowed to stand, federal power would be increased to a point where americans could be told exactly how to spend their money. precedent will be established. but it won t be. the court is going to rule the health care mandate unconstitutional. it has to. the justices cannot allow a power grab like that. in the end, america must
nowhere in the constitution is that power found. the other pro-obama care argument is equally weak. the so-called commerce clause whereby the feds regulate interstate transactions gives the government to force us the power to buy things. one thing that the federal government compels to you buy. well, let s me say under the militia act of 1792 people were compelled to buy muskets and powder. bill: what act was that? the militia act. this doesn t actually require people to buy health insurance. i think it would be good if you read the legislation. bill: did i read the legislation. it imposes a penalty. penalty is different than forcing something to buy. bill: forces them to do something if you punish them for not doing it. militia act of 1792, i m sure we are all familiar with that very interesting. that was basically a mandate by the federal government to the 14 existing states at the time to raise a standing militia so the new nation
larry, he doesn t need your help. you can look at the militia act of 1792. they made it very clear that the standard issue rifle of the day that you re going to be carrying, that s what s protected by the second amendment. you would say that would be what today? what kind of armament? machine gun. battle weapon our soldiers are using. an automatic weapon? of course. they ve been outlawed since the 30s. in some ways they are greatly restricted. they shouldn t be outlawed. that s another unconstitutional invasion by our federal government. was jay edgar hoover i don t know what his politics were. i think he i would like to bring them back. you re for machine guns. skip, if he was your lawyer here for guns, do you think you should be allowed to carry a tommy gun on to the washington
protect myself. god gave me life. he gave me the right to protect my life. and it is being taken away by the government as we speak, sir. do you believe that everyone in washington, d.c. right now would be better off carrying a firearm, everyone in the city of washington would be better off carrying a gun? they would be better off with a choice. and if they exercised the choice, would that be okay with you? if you were surrounded by a million people in washington all armed like yourself, would that bother you? no, not really. i m from michigan. i do it quite often. i live with that. you won t tell me you re an expert on second amendment but you won t tell me in any degree what it protects. does it protect your right to arm yourself to what degree? just tell me? let me relieve your curiosity. i want skip to answer the question. he doesn t need your help, larry. he doesn t need your help. larry, he doesn t need your help. you can look at the militia act of 1792. they ma