A friend sent me the attached opinion on the constitutionality of Obamacare and it raises several interesting points as to whether the bill in its current form ( insurance mandates) could survive Constitutional challenges based on recent Supreme Court decisions. You can rest assured that if enacted, there will be court challenges by someone as soon as it is 'ripe' when it can be heard by a court. It raises several esoteric points of Constitutional law but the links explain the individual court cases. A precedent would be the Supreme Court decisions on FDR and the New Deal.....Personally I think it would be upheld on left-right lines Obamacare is Seriously Unconstitutional On October 23rd, a _reporter_ (CNSNews.com) asked Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA): âMadam Speaker, where specifically does the Constitution grant Congress the authority to enact an individual health insurance mandate?â Speaker Pelosi shook her head and before moving on to another question replied: âAre you serious? Are you serious??â Pressed for a more substantive response later, Pelosiâs press spokesman admonished the reporter: âYou can put this on the record. That is not a serious question. That is not a serious question.â The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) disagrees. _In 1994, the CBO said _ (Congressional Budget Office - The Budgetary Treatment of an Individual Mandate to Buy Health Insurance 48:32517697C91247859B7A1BA1E02003DE) of an individual mandate to buy health insurance: A mandate requiring all individuals to purchase health insurance would be an unprecedented form of federal action. The government has never required people to buy any good or service as a condition of lawful residence in the United States. An individual mandate would have two features that, in combination, would make it unique. First, it would impose a duty on individuals as members of society. Second, it would require people to purchase a specific service that would be heavily regulated by the federal government. As much as Speaker Pelosi may wish otherwise, the CBO is dead on: the Supreme Court has never validated a federal power as intrusive as forcing all Americans to purchase a service due to their very existence. Sure, the Supreme Court has said that _Congress may regulate a farmerâs production of wheat even if he never plans to distribute it off of his farm_ (Wickard v. Filburn - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia 859B7A1BA1E02003DE) , and _the Supreme Court has said Congress may ban the possession of Marijuana even if it is for personal use_ (Gonzales v. Raich - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia 9B7A1BA1E02003DE) , but never before has the Supreme Court said the power to regulate commerce enabled Congress to force an individual to do something just because he existed. In fact, the Supreme Court has always been clear that the Commerce clause must have some limits. In _United States v. Lopez_ (United States v. Lopez - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia A1E02003DE) (1995), the Court struck down the Gun-Free School Zones Act, which attempted to reach the activity of possessing a gun within a thousand feet of a school. In _United States v. Morrison_ (United States v. Morrison - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia 1E02003DE) , it invalidated part of the Violence Against Women Act, which regulated gender-motivated violence. In both cases, the Court found the regulated activity in each case to be noneconomic; it was outside the reach of Congressâs Commerce power, regardless of its effect on interstate commerce. The case for the constitutionality of the individual mandate is far weaker than either of these two cases. Congress was at least trying to regulate an individualâs activity in the cases above. But the mandate does not purport to regulate or prohibit activity of any kind, whether economic or noneconomic. To the contrary, it purports to âregulateâ inactivity. If the individual mandate is Constitutional, then Congress could do anything. They could: require us to buy a new Chevy Impala each year to support the government-supporteIf the individual mandate is Constitutional, then Congress could do anything. They could: require us to buy a new Chevy Impala each year to support the government-supporte<WBR>d auto industry; require us [Socialism?] Many on the left immediately point to state mandates that drivers purchase car insurance as proof of a mandate that all Americans buy health insurance is not new. But car insurance mandates are _distinguishable in at least four ways_ (Why the Personal Mandate to Buy Health Insurance Is Unprecedented and Unconstitutional) : 1) they are state requirements and states have broader constitutional authority than the federal government; 2) they apply to drivers only, not all Americans (e.g. passengers are not required to carry insurance); 3) drivers use public roads; 4) states only require drivers to insure against injury to other drivers, not to insure themselves against personal injury. Yesterday The Heritage Foundationâs Center for Legal and Judicial Studies released a Legal Memorandum written in conjunction with Georgetown University Law Center Professor Randy Barnett and Nathaniel Stewart explaining: _Why the Personal Mandate to Buy Health Insurance Is Unprecedented and Unconstitutional_ (Why the Personal Mandate to Buy Health Insurance Is Unprecedented and Unconstitutional) . Introducing the paper, Sen. Orrin Hatch noted: James Madison said that if men were angels, no government would be necessary and if angels governed men, no limits on government would be necessary. Because neither men nor the governments they create are angelic, government and limits on government are both necessary for ordered liberty. Politics may tell us what we want to do, but the Constitution tells us what we may do and we must keep those separate. The ends do not justify the means for one simple reason â liberty. Liberty requires limits on government power, it always has and it always will. Someone needs to explain this concept to Speaker Pelosi. Seriously. Legal Memorandum - "Why the Personal Mandate to Buy Health Insurance Is Unprecedented and Unconstitutional" (see attached or online at _http://s3.amazonawshttp://s3http://s3.ahttp://s3.amhtt_ (http://s3.amazonaws.com/thf_media/2009/pdf/lm_0049.pdf) ) More Info on Obama Health Care Plan - _http://www.heritagehttp://wwwhttp://www.hehttp://wwwhtt_ (Obama Health Care Plan - Rapid Response | The Heritage Foundation) ____________________________________ Don't hold your breath, the crowd in power in Washington is perfectly ready to ride roughshod over the Constitution, as it did with the bankruptcy proceedings of GM negating two hundred years of precedent in overturning creditors rights. Pardon my cynicism but never in my life have I seen such utter disregard for both Constitutional limits on Federal power (absurd stretching of the Commerce Clause, and basically blowing off 10th Amendment). ---------------------------------------------- Ed.-If this was taken from a copyrighted article, it was not my intent to publish it in total. I believe that it was his personal opinion and thus I am free to publish the whole piece.