Exactly. Regulate: to control or direct by a rule, principle, method, etc.
Also, Regulate is very different from “mandate the purchase of insurance”.
In what way? A mandate to do something is a regulation of that activity.
I think very specific things are being argued in this case.
Agreed, but you are ignoring the arguments and the precedents.
The administration is arguing that by NOT purchasing the service, you make it more expensive for all others (smaller pool sharing the risk) and thus you are adversly affecting commerce. Therefore they have the "right" to regulate. IOW, they have moved the goalposts and have a good amount of precedent on thier side, Gonzales vs. Raich being one of them.
We can argue all we want about whether the arguments meet original intent, but that is moot as original intent no longer applies to anything regarding the commerce clause - the courts having eviscerated it long ago.
I get what you are saying, but my point is that it is the same kind of twisting of logic that allowed a college kid back in the early 70’s to write a term paper proving black is white.
You could use that line of thinking, twisting as you see fit, to allow literally anything.
Which, I confess, is what I fear and why this case is such a big deal to me. If they side with Obama, the US is officially finished and the constitution is LITERALLY (not “mostly) not worth the paper it’s written on.
At that point, it is every man for himself.