Health Care Mandates Justified By The Commerce Clause ... HUH?

Two rather significant problems with Dems repeated claims that the Constitution's Commerce Clause gives them the authority to force citizens to comply with these new health care requirements:

1. ANY reading of what the founders intended that clause to cover proves the Democrats are incorrect in applying it the way they are. It is unconstitutional on that basis.
2. The Commerce Clause was created to 'make regular' interstate commerce. Problem is there is NO interstate commerce involved in the way health insurance companies operate. Congress long ago CREATED LAWS PREVENTING(!) insurance companies from competing across state lines. Therefore, the insurance industry is prevented from interstate commerce BY LAW! If they MAY NOT compete across state lines, then the Commerce Clause CANNOT POSSIBLY APPLY! It is unconstitutional on this basis also.

In addition, what they're requiring states to do via this health care bill is a complete violation of states rights as established by the constitution (again, via ANY reading of the founders' intentions). That is so clear to states that at least 38(!) states' attorney's general are prepared to sue Congress over this. 4 states' AG's said they were going to file suit immediately after Obama signs it. The rest will either join the suit or decide what to do based on the results of that.

By the way, our own US representative, Peter DeFazio, when asked in a town hall meeting what authority they have to do this, said their authority for this health care bill is the General Welfare Clause. So, not only can't they get their stories straight, but his claim is also incorrect. This health care reform is NOT covered under the General Welfare Clause either by ANY interpretation of the founders' written intentions. In fact, they made a point of excluding such application in multiple writings.

The ACTUAL constitution means nothing to these guys. They are completely out of control.

By the way, NO major legislation, especially big permanent social legislation, in our history has been rammed through by one party at the total exclusion of participation in its creation by the other and complete lack of yes votes. Social Security and Medicare were also controversial Democratic products but they involved Republicans. Those bills passed with bipartisan involvement, debate, support, and voting. The only thing bipartisan about this one is opposition to it (with some 35 or so Dems ... ie, 14%!!! ... voting against it).