If your point was that merchant mariners are civilians then let me point out that they weren't formally made auxiliary to the Navy till after 1798 anyway, what does that have to do with anything? There Quasi-military status was relevant only insofar as it gives the gov't, at the federal level, a recognizable interest in them and direct jurisdiction over them, unlike say, a river barge, or some guy taking his canoe out fishing, even the foriegn port part is fairly irrelevant besides reminding that the fed has special authority where health matters and customs/ports are concerned or epidemic plagues, and yeah they knew all about sailors bringing plagues and stuff back then. The challenges to Obamacare have to do with government requiring everyone to purchase insurance from private companies, emphasis on 'everyone' [minus the ever-growing list of exemptions and waivers] and 'private companies'. Sailor is a job, you do not have to be a sailor, just like you do not have to have a car license, commercial truckers are required by law - state law in most states - to carry insurance, truckers are a lot like sailors, but that requirement to have liability insurance comes from the states as they have jurisdiction... doctor's also have to get permission from states to practice medicine, almost like state's have jurisdiction over medical practice or something. But, again, this really has nothing to do with medicine, which is the only common denominator between that Act and Obamacare, it has to do with forcing everyone - not individual jobs or groups where there is a specific reason and where a person can choose simply not to do that job - to buy a product from a private company, that is what the challenge is, and why people involved with the challenge keep bringing up other products, as the constitution doesn't specify much where medicine and authority lay, saying that they have authority to make you buy something of that type, minus an amendment that actually gives them authority on that subject, also gives them power and precedent to just as easily require the purchase of pink flamingos by everyone from private companies, and other than the similiarity of both involving healthcare, that act and Obamacare have no relation to the challenge being made, just like a ban on saying the word 'fire' would be three entirely separate cases even though they involve the same word if case 1 was falsely screaming it in a burning theater, case 2 was a ban on using the word even when speaking calmly and referencing a clearly present and contained campfire, and case 3 would be saying it right before someone was shot and whether or not free speech protected you when you clearly issued an instruction to shoot someone, someone raising a right to say the word 'Fire' in each of those cases would not be presenting the same legal challenge nor likely producing precedents applicable to the others when a ruling came down. This act has nothing to do with the court challenges.