Responding to Wulfgar’s original arguments:

–> “First, you call it “ObamaCare”. That’s a bold faced lie.”

You are attempting to undermine a legitimate question of Constitutionality by attacking the popular name? Both lefties and righties have called it ObamaCare. People who supported it have called their insurance companies asking where they can get the “free ObamaCare.”

Regardless, this particular argument of yours is like trying to tear apart academic research because you don’t like the format of the coverpage. It’s pointless.

–> “So, calling reform “ObamaCare” is complete and utter bullpucky, isn’t it?”

Obama has backed the healthcare push in its entirety, not just the Senate Finance Committee version that has yet to be written. Obama personally pressured most or all of the wavering Dems to vote for what IS written. He has made it the defining issue of his presidency. It belongs to him. Calling it Obama’s is at worst a _stretch_ of the truth, but it is certainly not, as you claim, “complete and utter bullpucky.”

–> “Second, you remain completely incapable of showing how any bill before Congress would actually put the Government “between” a person and their doctor.”

ObamaCare grants unprecedented powers to the Secretary of Health and Human Services. He or she will get to make sweeping decisions about what care must or must not be covered by healthcare providers. Decisions will be made, based on the feedback of a committee of unelected bureaucrats, about what healthcare procedures are and are not worth pursuing.

There may not be a literal bureaucrat in the room, but when the gubmint mandates what is and isn’t worth covering, and at what rates, it’s the next closest thing. They can deem a procedure not worthwhile, slash how much it is reimbursed, and effectively kill it, because docs won’t be able to afford to eat the cost of doing it. That’s the government getting between you and your doctor.

–> “Third, you claim as fact that Obama favors HB 1300 [sic], and you have no evidence save your own say-so.”

It is well known that Obama pushed wavering Democrats to vote for the bill in front of them. It doesn’t matter what flavor he gave lip service to, what matters are his actions. His action in this case was to use all his political might to push through the bill we now have. Which flavor Obama claimed to favor is a moot point.

–> I haven’t had the time to dig into your fourth point, so someone else will have to address it. Regardless, you will probably (as many liberals do) make the claim that because I didn’t address ALL your points, I must have no point at all. I disagree, and think the arguments above stand alone; they are not interdependent. So at most, you have one valid point out of all your ranting. Right now, your record is 0-3, with one point yet to be analyzed. That doesn’t bode well for your fourth point.

Now for everyone else: I’m not a regular here, and if I just “fed the troll” I offer my apologies.

Mark in Boston: The Preamble from which you quote is a statement of purpose. It has no substantive force and gives the federal government no power. That’s a universal characteristic of preambles in legal documents, both at the Founding and today. This, by the way, is an uncontroversial point, even among constitutional lawyers who agree on little else.

Carl: I did not argue in my article that nationalized health care was unconstitutional from an originalist point of view — practically everyone admits that. The point I was making, which you will see if you re-read it, is that there are constitutional issues with nationalized health care even from the standpoint of modern Supreme Court jurisprudence.

Incidentally, Carl, your claim that “By Mr. Natelson’s reasoning all Federal government activities other than (presumably) the Army and Navy . . . are “unconstitutional” because they’re not “original”” is a common stereotype of original meaning jurisprudence, but it is not accurate. The Constitution, as originally understood, is a lot more flexible than that. It’s just not infinitely flexible, as some in Congress seem to believe.