That is the question that will hopefully soon be answered by the Supreme Court. But the conventional wisdom for those who think that Obamacare is just dandy with the Constitution, like Pennsylvania Governor Ed (Fast Eddie) Rendell, seems to be calling the health care system put in place in Massachusetts as precedent.
Biggest problem with this, and this is the fallacy of Rendell’s argument, is that the states can make whatever law they want, within their state, and the federal government has no similar autonomy. The federal government is restrained by the 10th Amendment of the Constitution thusly . . .
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
Gov. Rendell and the Obama administration are making the giant leap that the federal government is the same as a state. Dictators view those as being the same, but this is not the case in the United States.
If the people of Massachusetts don’t like the health care system there (which they’ve found out is way more expensive then they figured), they can change it, or they are free to move to another state to get out from under it. Our freedom and liberty allow us to do that. If you like to smoke pot, you may want to move to California. If you like to not have your income taxed by the state, you may want to move to Florida. If you like to pay taxes on anything and everything, you may want to move to New York.
The massive centralization of control and power that Obamacare projects is simply antithetical to the original intent of the founding fathers and the documents they created.
Under Obamacare, there is no provision in the constitution that gives the federal government the power to require citizens to purchase anything else they be fined. Under Obamacare, there is no where to go to get out from under it.