Is It Constitutional?

A lot of claims have been made, recently, that Obama/PelosiCare is unconstitutional. It's also been a long time since I studied Constitutional Law, so I don't have a firm opinion on the matter - yet. Conservatives should be cautious here. Being wrong is cumulative, especially on the facts.

What I do know, now, is that "constitutionality" depends upon The Court's interpretation of the meaning of the constitutional principle being questioned. While there will certainly be a host of constitutional issues involved in the advancement of nationalized medicine, the first will necessarily be the state's "Police Power", which could underwrite the legality of nationalized medicine.

As I recall, the Federal government's Police Power derives from Article I, Sec. 8 of the Constitution, which states, among other things...

"The Congress shall have the power to lay and collect Taxes,[etc.]...and provide for the common Defense and General Welfare of the United States..."

Promoting the General Welfare has been employed as the underlying constitutional power to practice compulsory sterilization, compulsory vaccination; to enforce Civil Rights legislation under the Commerce Clause, and so much more it makes you dizzy. What IS the General Welfare? That is the first constitutional principle involved in determining the legality of nationalized medicine.

So, no offense meant to anyone, but when I hear conservative talk radio hosts bellowing that nationalized medicine is unconstitutional, I don't hear a word about the constitutional principle that supports that claim. You can be sure that the activist lawyers in pay to our drones in Congress have already prepared a constitutional defense of their new diktat. Right now, an activist Supreme Court would probably find it "constitutional".

PS: Said talk show hosts have demanded that they be shown the words in The Constitution which permit PelosiCare. It's not the text that matters, it's 200 years of judge's opinions and decisions that matter.