With Respect To The Constitutionality Of The Mandate.

and if there was one, we would have heard about it ad infinitum by now.

The draft is not compelling people to buy from a private company, and neither is income tax.

Home insurance is only required if you have a mortgage, and auto, if you own a car and drive it. You can't opt not to breathe.

On the flip side, eliminating the penalty on pre-existing conditions without mandating that healthy people buy insurance is a fast track to collapse of the system, and the people who need it most being priced out of the market before they even begin.

Of course, there is Medicare Part E - that COULD be mandated under Federal Law if the Legislature would cut ties to their lobbyists and see the ROI for the Good of We The People, but it is what it is right now.

The power allowing the federal government to draft an army is very clear in the constitution. Article 1, Section 8. I don't even think the home insurance requirement is federal law.

Thanks for your reply. Love your posts.

"The Commerce Clause is an enumerated power listed in the United States Constitution (Article I, Section 8, Clause 3). The clause states that the United States Congress shall have power "To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commerce_Clause

Here is an article that points out some of the cases where the 'commerce clause' has been held as legal justification by the SCOTUS in the past.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/aroy/2012/03/27/supreme-court-decisions-that-justify-the-individual-mandate-in-some-eyes/

Another interesting article is here: http://www.tnr.com/article/politics/102203/supreme-court-obamacare-verrilli

I will read these when I get off work.

with the mandate and those rulings. The feds aren't regulating commerce, they are imposing commerce. I state that due to the tax/penalty brought down by the feds with respect to the mandate.

I will read the other two later.

"Can the government create commerce in order to regulate it?"

The significance of the Commerce Clause is described in the Supreme Court's opinion in Gonzales v. Raich, 545 U.S. 1 (2005):

"The Commerce Clause emerged as the Framers' response to the central problem giving rise to the Constitution itself: the absence of any federal commerce power under the Articles of Confederation. For the first century of our history, the primary use of the Clause was to preclude the kind of discriminatory state legislation that had once been permissible. Then, in response to rapid industrial development and an increasingly interdependent national economy, Congress “ushered in a new era of federal regulation under the commerce power,” beginning with the enactment of the Interstate Commerce Act in 1887 and the Sherman Antitrust Act in 1890."

The Commerce Clause represents one of the most fundamental powers delegated to the Congress by the founders. The outer limits of the Interstate Commerce Clause power has been the subject of long, intense political controversy. Interpretation of the sixteen words of the Commerce Clause has helped define the balance of power between the federal government and the states and the balance of power between the two elected branches of the Federal government and the Judiciary. As such, it has a direct impact on the lives of American citizens.