I'm late to this thread (traveling today) so maybe someone has already asked on what basis you believe RomneyCare is not Constitutional. (I am referring to RomneyCare as something Massachusetts did to itself, as opposed to Federal legislation.) If so, would you please point me to the reply you gave some time ago, or else briefly state why you think the Constitution prohibits a State from imposing this upon its citizens.
ML/NJ
I believe it would be unconstitutional for the state to force its citizens to enter into private contracts against their will simply for simply living within a state. I might understand requiring liability insurance if you wish to register and drive a car within a state, but compulsory health insurance just to live in the state? This would be a direct violation of their 4th amendment right to be secure in their homes, papers and private affairs if nothing else.
Definitely a violation of the founding principles and of our inalienable God-given rights to individual liberty and right to self-rule and economic freedom (pursuit of happiness). It’s clear to see that Romney cares no more about individual sovereignty or conservatism or Liberty than does Obama!!
Ronald Reagan on RomneyCare (compulsory health insurance) and the elites (Romney) introducing socialism into America via compulsory health insurance:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fRdLpem-AAs