The general welfare clause will not limit further goverment intrusion, if this law is allowed to stand. In fac,t it will be used as reason to promote an increase in government control. For instance, prospects such as banning certain foods, or consumption of "accepted" foods will fall under the perview of government because it is providing health care, and it is in the general welfare of the public for some people to not be fat, or not smoke, or not drink, or not be homosexual, or (insert about anything else here). This law is something out of a dystopian novel.

As i mentioned, the commerce clause has already been perverted from its original intent in other other cases, which certainly stretch the limits of the definition of "interstate commerce." Applying it to force commerce is well above the high water mark. I mentioned three other ways to achieve the same goals (not that I am saying that this legislation will achieve those goals because I dont believe it will) that would not have come under constitutional scrutiny. Theres no denying that there were better ways to do this. This opens up pandora's box.

I think what the professor is saying is that any law passed by congress is deemed to be constitutional. The court must assume that the law is constitutional until proven beyond a reasonable doubt that it is unconstitutional.

The professor's posts are showing reasonable doubts which have to be proven unconstitutional for the law to be ruled unconstitutional. If the court uses the same process as the professor I think the court has no other choice than to rule that the law in its present form is constitutional.

However there are multiple processes to look at the constitutionality of laws. Two different outcomes, but similiar processes are Roe v. Wade and Citizens United. Both cases looked at the constitution in a very narrow focus and did not look at precedent. If the Court looks at ACA in this fashion it will probably be found unconstitutional.

There is a clause that would prevent government expansion into other areas of life. General defense and welfare clause. If the law would not better the general welfare of the American people, then it would be unconstitutional. The ACA law passes this test because the laws main purpose is to increase access to healthcare for those presently without insurance.

You keep skirtting the main issue, the federal government lacks the authority under the constitution to enact such a law through the commerce clause, absent existing interstate commerce. As I stated in my response to your last post, had the president had the political courage to lobby for support for a single-payer health care system, it would have been constitutional through congress' taxing authority. Had the president sought bipartisan support and asked for and included minority party ideas, more than half the states in the country wouldnt be suing over it. Had the president lobbied for a constitutional amendment expanding federal powers, this would be legal. Had the president provided leadership and encouraged states to adpot health care reform that work for citizens of their respective states, there wouldnt be a constitutional issue.

This is all about the presdents ideology, ego, and expansion of federal power, little if anything about actually improving health care or reducing costs because it will do neither. We already have government run health care called Medicare and Medicaid that neither decrease costs nor improve healthcare, quite the contrary to both. Making it bigger only compounds the problems. The masses of uninsured could become insured through lowering the threshold to quallify for Medicaid, that would be a one page law not a 2700 page law. This law throws a few bones to select people at a cost of giving up freedoms for all, and is the classic "bait and switch."

Theres no getting around the fact that the president tried to short cut the process, it its blown up in his face. This is the president's own doing and it can be seen as nothing other than a failure in leadership. It takes no political courage to push something through congress, when you have huge majorities in both houses, therefore this mess falls squarely in his lap. A credible claim can not even be made there was majority public or congressional support given the consistent polls showing the contrary and given that to even get to the slim majority to pass it required, lets call it "creative favors to select Democratic senators." Which will be the next aspect of the law found to be unconstitutional.

Your arguments in this and the last post rely solely on the presumption…."Yes the legistaltion is not founded in constitutional law, but we did it and now no one should undo it because although illegal, its good for the country"………bad things done for good intentions are still bad things. The ramifcations of upholding this law will be felt for years to come as the solicitor general for the government wasnt able to credibly cite a single limiting factor that would prevent government expansion in every other area of life. Although I suppose if one is inclined to desire unlimited federal powers, that works for you, it doesnt work for most of us. As I said earlier, if thats what you want, go through the process of amending the constitution to permit it, otherwise this is the tail wagging the dog.