From lsj.com:

Rose states the law is constitutional because of precedent previously set on the narrow shoulders of the Commerce Clause. This is simply not the case. What Rose fails to mention is the distinct difference between previous cases and the current health-care law.

The Commerce Clause of the Constitution is contained in Article 1, section 8. It provides Congress the power to “regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States …” Since the Constitution’s conception this clause has been twisted away from its plain meaning to incorporate almost anything Congress can think of passing. This has included such things as vehicle tires, food stuffs, child labor, licenses, racial segregation and now, it seems, health care.

All previous precedent set by the Commerce Clause has not forced anyone into a monetary obligation. If you don’t want to take part in something, you don’t have to; no one is going to punish you for your decision. The health-care law does exactly the opposite.

Read the Rest…