That's exactly right. They should not be able to force us to buy insurance from private companies only. It's clearly corporate welfare without the public option. And while I'm not thrilled with the opt out, it would be a huge embarrassment if states that don't opt out perform much better than those that do, immediately. I'd much prefer that they just open it up to everyone and begin to phase it in incrementally as soon as next year. If it's opened up to everyone, the pool is larger and the savings will be greater. Private insurers will either compete or go out of business, either of which would be a good thing for consumers.

I understood the reasoning in the linked article.

Now I wonder - if the individual mandate is deemed constitutionally sound, and a state chooses to opt out, can the opting-out be found to be unconstitutional?

Bob, let me just preface this by saying this is a bigger issue than congress would like you to believe, as well as the consistently cool, low-key approach of the Obama administration.

You said earlier this week that some have accused you of being an "Obama apologist," and if that's the case, they can call me a "Bob Cesca apologist." Even as I submit to you-- you, nor I, have nothing to apologize for, I have no intention of obstructing this inarguably momentous step forward for real healthcare reform with a "let's call the whole thing off" short-sighted stubborness seen left and right.

But calling upon the Commerce Clause in this instance is like calling upon Roe Vs. Wade to mandate abortions. Okay, Okay. Maybe that's a bit mello-dramatic.

But It's weak and not really convincing at all. Timothy Noah isn't a lawyer. He's cherry-picking opinions of opinions of original intent and neglecting to state the non-existent precedent to try to get past this certain-to-be- bitter roadblock. But considering the timing and circumstances, It's an argument worthy of some of the great debates in American history, in my opinion, and should not go quietly into the sweet goodnight without discussion.

The Commerce Clause, even in its present, and even sometimes controversial modified interpretation, is being used by Democrats in Congress as an overreaching attempt to broadly redefine "commerce" forever--voluntary and mutual exchange of goods and services.

Commerce between the people is traditionally a voluntary exchange.

The regulation of supply-side commerce is very much a congressional responsibility to protect the people and promote the flow of goods, whereas regulation of the buy-side(you, the consumer)is really an infringement on individual freedom and choice.

"Regulating commerce," or "commercial enterprise," has more to do with the ways in which business is conducted according to safety standards and protections for the consumer and investors, rather than the giant net congress is intending to cast as it exceeds its power to mandate the individual on behalf of a for profit industry.

In short, if a mandate limits freedom and voluntary exchange of "reciprocal wants," in areas of commerce, it can only be interpreted as unconstitutional.

But I'm not standing in the way of much needed regulations and reform based on this.

Bring on the Healthcare bill! and tell that fake-assed douchbag, Joe Lieberman, to either get on board with progress and change, or go eat a bag of dicks and get the fuck outta the way.

Realistically, the Constitutionality of Mandates will probably be decided by the Supreme...and I think the current court might well go with the conservative thinking of Urbanowicz and Smith.

I'd feel more comfortable if they stopped calling it a "mandate" and just called it something like a "healthcare security tax" and made it work that way.

That's where the precedent and congressional authority comes from.

The Supreme Court can't rule against taxation or Congress's authority to do so. This is very basic authority.

It hurts my ears to hear the words "government mandate!" rather than something like, "Healthcare security tax."

Democrats are scared to use the word "tax," but they'll use the word, "mandate." Squeamish about the words, "government program," even while defending Medicare and Social Security.

I understand the fetish with dressing in suits and ties towing a brief case everyday to sell insurance is a Needle Nose Ned tradition in America, but if the health insurance sector is too big to fail, or means too much to the stability of the economy for any disruptions or the slightest competition to the status quo, then we have no economy.

I'd like to see the whole private sector relieved of their healthcare insurance providing responsibilities, but if the government can can neutralize the moral abuses and inject a little competition into the system, it's a huge victory and qualifies as major pushback.

As for the conservatives on the court, in their worst moments, they're cowardly and small, hiding behind a blindfolded interpretation of justice with smug self-righteousness. The great majority of their arguments are narrow in scope and flawed.

Justice Sonia is a far superior Justice than Scalia or Roberts and should have no trouble exposing them as time goes by.