[MeanGreen2008]

The bill on its face is unconstitutional regardless of the content since Article 1 Section 8 does not specifically grant Congress the power to regulate health care.

I'm afraid the Interstate Commerce clause is an enumerated power that does grant Congress the power to do what they are doing. Do not count on the Constitutionality argument to win the day.

[CottShop]

have you got any info stating that they do have this power? A link to relevent section or exerpt?

[mvpel]

I'm afraid the Interstate Commerce clause is an enumerated power that does grant Congress the power to do what they are doing.

It's presently illegal to engage in interstate commerce in the purchase of health insurance, so this is just another illustration of how warped the leftist worldview is.

[Jim Robinson]

It does not. I am a private citizen. You are a private citizen. We are not interstate commerce. They cannot regulate our private affairs as if we were conducting interstate commerce. The congress cannot command me to purchase their health care insurance program or any health care insurance program. Period. And they cannot make it a crime if I don’t. And they cannot take my property or money without due process. I demand a jury trial. I pray millions of Americans follow suit.

[tacticalogic]

I'm afraid the Interstate Commerce clause is an enumerated power that does grant Congress the power to do what they are doing.

Not by any description of the commerce power by the Founders that I've ever read. The "substantial effects" doctrine is an invention of the FDR and the New Deal court. It has no basis in original intent, and is in fact contrary to it.

[Man50D]

I'm afraid the Interstate Commerce clause is an enumerated power that does grant Congress the power to do what they are doing.

If our founding fathers intended to grant Congress unlimited powers then there would have been no need for them to list specific powers in Article 1 Section 8 that are granted to Congress. They would have merely written the ICC in Article 1 Section 8, omitting the listing of individual powers. The founding fathers would also not have bothered to write the 10th Amendment and would have not stated the 10th Amendment with the wording "Any powers not delegated to the United State" if they intended to grant Congress unlimited powers.

Our founding fathers most certainly did intend to limit the powers of the federal government as evident in James Madison's Federalist paper #45. To quote:

The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government, are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected. The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State.