Not An Enumerated Power

Hold on let's be clear when you say that he argues that "Obamacare is unconstitutional". That's not what he argued, and you're being deliberately vague. He's arguing that the mandate is unconstitutional - an argument which I think does have merit. The health reform package is much more than that, though. Don't try to constitutionally discredit the rest of it by trumping up a legitimate argument against the mandate.

Not seeing how it is "much more than that" (a mandate). Without the mandate, the most of the rest of it is meaningless. With the exception of cuts to Medicare. That has to happen anyway... one way or another.

Are you serious? What about the exchange? The excise tax on employer plans? The Medicaid expansion? The Medicare spending and revenue changes? The House's public option? The facilitation of co-ops for the exchange? The guaranteed issue and renewability requirements? The risk adjustment rules? The subsidies for low-income families? The essential benefits package? The removal of the anti-trust exemption? All the cutsie programs on "comparative effectiveness", nutrition, wellness, nursing workforce training, etc. (who knows what they'll ultimately amount to)?

I think the ideal, most meaningful health reform would look like all this, just without the mandate. It's the mandate that is making it all meaningless.

Either way, agree with me or not, I don't understand why you're suggesting the reform is basically the mandate.

What about the exchange? Not necessary without a mandate.
The excise tax on employer plans? Not necessary without a mandate.
The Medicaid expansion? Unrelated.
The Medicare spending and revenue changes? Unrelated.
The House's public option? Not necessary without a mandate.
The facilitation of co-ops for the exchange? Not necessary without a mandate.
The guaranteed issue and renewability requirements? Not necessary without a mandate.
The risk adjustment rules? Not necessary without a mandate.
The subsidies for low-income families? Unrelated.
The essential benefits package? Not necessary without a mandate.
The removal of the anti-trust exemption? Unrelated.
All the cutsie programs on "comparative effectiveness", nutrition, wellness, nursing workforce training, etc. (who knows what they'll ultimately amount to)? Unrelated.

The question was - is the bill "much more" than the mandate. And that answer is it's is a LOT more than the mandate, the mandate is the most odious part and should be challenged in court, and Don shouldn't lump the rest of the bill in together with something as constitutionally dubious as the mandate.

Don lumped them together because they are lumped together. I do agree that they should not have been lumped together. Lumping together a bunch of bad ideas and stamping it with "government approved" does not a good idea make.

Just as lumping a bunch of things together and stamping it "unconstitutional" does not an unconstitutional bill make. I also harbor suspicions that the mandate is unconstitutional. Don acts like the whole bill is unconstitutional, even though the person he links to is only talking about the mandate.

Huh? What do you mean "unrelated". It's all in the bill. That's my point - there is more to "Obamacare" than the mandate, and if the mandate were struck down there's still a lot left in the bill that stands on it's own.

The exchange made sense to lots of people (myself included) who were opposed to the inclusion of a mandate. The excise tax made sense to lots of people (McCain for example) without the mandate. Medicaid expansion is an important part of health reform, it's in the bill, and it stands completely independent of the mandate. I could continue to go on down the list. The only thing that is marginally tied to the mandate is the subsidies - and even those make sense without the mandate too. Some of this is more related to the mandate than others, but the point is ALL OF IT is in the bill and it would stand alone as "Obamacare" if the mandate were struck down.

By Unrelated, I mean it didn't belong in the bill. Medicare has severe problems which need to be addressed, but not in a bill to make everyone get health insurance.

The exchange/public option, was only in this bill because the mandate isn't feasible without it. Not that an exchange is a bad idea, but it doesn't require government to create it.

The exise tax is a punitive measure. Nothing more and nothing less.

I didn't think this was a bill to make everyone get health insurance? I thought this was a bill to reform health care (and of course there are some people out there who think universal coverage is a part of that).

RE: "The exise tax is a punitive measure. Nothing more and nothing less."

Hmmmm... not sure why you think that. The excise tax is a weak attempt at eliminating the distortion of priveleging employer health benefits in the tax code. We tax income but not benefits - that distorts prices. I'd prefer we just tax benefits like income, but an excise tax on bigger plans is the next best thing if that's what can get passed.

That's the spin. I suggest you ask around. Most everyone I talk to thinks that this is a bill to mandate that everyone buy health insurance. And the folks I know on the left aren't any happier about it than those on the right. Of course, they could all be wrong and you are right. In fact, that's what all the Dem "leaders" are saying... that the problem is that they just didn't explain well enough... or maybe the dogs just don't it (see new post above).

Haha - well of course that's the spin! That's precisely what I'm saying - Don needs to stop indulging in that spin, because there's a lot of other things in there, and I specifically think there's a lot of other good things in there.

RE: "Of course, they could all be wrong and you are right."

Not sure what you mean here.

What about Lysander Spooner's "No Treason VI: The Constitution of No Authority"?

Arguments over "constitutionality" are irrelevant once you understand that the constitution itself is illegitimate.

Exactly, and that was the first thing of Spooner's that I read and why my last sentence in the previous comment read as it did.

The question is: is it consistent with natural rights, liberty, and justice, none of which have anything to do with the Constitution? (See Spooner for the answer.)

To be nit picky Bill, this nation was founded on the principles of natural rights, and even the Constitution is written to honor them. The constitution has a fatal flaw but this is not it.

You won't find natural rights acknowledged in the basic document but you do in the "Bill of rights", particularly in the first 6 amendments.

The natural right of the individual to:
practice the religion of his choice
to engage in speech as he sees fit
publish his writings freely
gather with others in assemblies or associations for whatever reason
keep and bear arms for protection, revolution, and hunting
be secure in his own home and possessions
be safe from random seizures and searches of his person
be properly accused of a crime
be tried by a jury of his peers
be informed of the nature of the charges against him
etc.

I have spent some time with Spooner since 1986, I don't remember Spooner writing that the Constitution and natural rights weren't on the same page. If you have a quote where he says that in plain language then for once I would have to disagree with him.

Now, I do agree with him that the constitution can not apply to me until I volunteer agreement or give it permission.

The Constitutional arguments used by proponents of the "individual mandate" are bizarre. Unfortunately, the Constitution is violated so routinely and frequently that I have no hope for a challenge on those grounds.

First, the government passed a law requiring certain health care providers to provide their services without compensation. This drove up the cost of healthcare because the providers had to recover losses caused by people not paying by collecting from those who did pau. As prices were driven up, more and more people simply chose to not pay, the concern being that a situation would soon develop in which almost no one could afford to pay even if they felt inclined to pay. The government's solution is to require that everyone pay.

So, as a Constitutional issue, had the government not violated the Constitution in the first place by requiring some to provide services without compensation, they would not now have to violate the constitution again to require people to pay for a service. And so it goes...

Randy,

You are close to laying your finger on the only Constitutional issue involved. Or, you have thus laid your finger in a round-about way.

That is WTF is government involving itself in individual health care when there is no authorization in the Constitution to do it.

We should have two governments in this nation, one for freedom loving people and one for the thumbsucking democrats/socialist/
communists/progressives/liberals.

Or, divide the nation into two parts. Put the thumbsuckers in the west coast states, out to the Rocky Mountains, leave the rest for people who want to be free and want to earn their way. Or, turn that around and give the thumbsuckers the nation east of the Mississippi, and leave the west for us.

Either way, in ten years the bastards would starving and be begging for re-entry on our terms, or else we would have slaughtered them in a war as we repelled them from invasion. Both ways we come out winners.

"For the first time in the history of our country, 225 years, the federal government's saying you've got to buy something"

Isn't that what taxes are?

No sir.

Taxes are a required purchase of protection, roads, infrastructure, etc.

How would you argue otherwise?

Excise taxes, my friend, are on what you DO buy, not what you MUST buy.

Has any one commanded you to buy gasoline? No. If you live in a city and public transportation fits your style, then you pay no fuel tax, except as how it may be a minute part of that subway ticket.

(yes, others subsidize you but that is another argument)

Oh c'mon, no matter how you disguise them or collect them, taxes are a purchase that the government requires you to make. Plain and simple.

I'm not saying it's right--I'm just saying that it IS.

BANG upside the ear, sir. I can think of no purchase I am required by government to make. That is the issue.

Taxes are on things you buy, you don't pay taxes on things you don't buy.

Government can't make you buy stuff. You buy stuff because you choose to.

The amount of taxes the government takes from me on any given, day, week, month, or year changes dramatically because of MY wants and needs, not theirs.

If it were your way, then they could just drop the pretense and command you to present yourself at appointed times and cough up tax money on things you might have bought but didn't, should have bought but didn't, thought about buying but didn't; and. last on the barter and trade that you did with other private individuals.

Excise taxes are sales and use taxes, and if you don't buy or use then you don't pay a tax. I buy zero on government compulsion, I'd love to know what you buy that you consider is in response to government command.

If I choose never to own an auto and bicycle everywhere I go, I will pay a one time excise tax on my purchase of the bicycle, not because the government required me to make the purchase but because I wanted to. Until I need some part replaced, then that voluntary personal purchase will never be taxed again. Now, what if I buy the bicycle from a friend who has had it for years? No tax. Perhaps I visit the city dump and keep a watch out until I collect the parts I need to put together a workable bike. No tax.

Government required purchases. Like the truth or not, sir, all taxes are voluntary and depend upon your pro-action in the markets.

"Taxes are on things you buy, you don't pay taxes on things you don't buy."

Ever heard of the income tax?

You're not making any sense. Even if taxes were only levied on things that you "buy," taxes still presume that the government has some sort of contractual authority over the transaction. Since there is no way for me to perform one of these transactions without the tax (i.e. there is no competition for lowering taxes because it is illegal) and every transaction is required by force to carry this tax by a third party who is not involved in the transaction and does not possess ownership rights to either of our property (the government), it is involuntary.

What if the government taxed every trade 100%? Would you still say that taxes are voluntary? Sure, you could isolate yourself off in the woods somewhere without food, clothing, or shelter and not have to pay any taxes (I was going to say "sit in your house" or "work a plot of land" but then I remembered property taxes)--but you would soon perish. That's not exactly what I'd call freedom.

I appreciate the attempt at a libertarian justification of taxes, but the logic is screwy.

Okay, we live in two different worlds. In yours it is all about government and in mine government has a decidedly back seat role.

Yeah I've heard of income taxes, LOL, oh yeah. Voluntary dude strictly voluntary. Here I go again, I am sure.

Sir, you seem to be one of those that can run your eyes over writings and never have a single word seep through your eyes into your brain. You see what you want to see, and draw the conclusions you do based on what you've tricked yourself into seeing.

I recognize excise taxes as legit, we agree. Excise taxes are attached to use and sales. Our difference is that you seem to think I can be made to pay those taxes whether I buy something or not, in this case you particularly seem to think I can be made to buy or use something that is taxed.

We disagree.

You are completely misinterpreting me. I am not making an argument about how I think things should be, but about how things are. I haven't shared any of my own political opinions regarding the role of government. You seem to be looking for them where they don't exist, i.e. "seeing what you want to see."

Since you're asking, though, I'll share:

I don't think excise taxes are any more or less legitimate than any other form of taxation. I don't see why my buying something makes taxing it okay. My decision to trade is just another form of human action, no different from my decision not to trade (Miseian reference there). They're both an exercise of freedom within my rights.

The government thinks that it has the right to force us to buy things, and it exercises that 'right' all the time. I'm not saying that it's okay--I'm just saying that it's nothing new.

So, no, I'm not actually a government-loving socialist. I'm a libertarian like you :P

For some reason, sir, we just can't seem to get together. Mind if I start from the bottom of your post and respond?

"So, no, I'm not actually a government-loving socialist. I'm a libertarian like you :P"

No, I didn't ask, and no I am not a libertarian and my denial is well known here on the Cafe. I am a conservative, not a republican, but a conservative like the pioneers were conservative.

The reason I make the distinction is that it is obvious to one who looks that the modern version of conservatism - republican style, is all about government just like the socialist...just a different view of how that government power is wielded. I am glad you're a libertarian rather than a socialist.

"The government thinks that it has the right to force us to buy things, and it exercises that 'right' all the time. I'm not saying that it's okay--I'm just saying that it's nothing new."

Actually the concept that government can compel you to buy, is indeed new; so new in fact that this health care issue advanced by the socialist is the first place it has ever cropped up.

The founding fathers believed so strongly in the right to keep and bear arms that they made that protection the 2nd amendment......but did you notice that there was no attempt to compel the people to actually own a weapon?

"I don't think excise taxes are any more or less legitimate than any other form of taxation. I don't see why my buying something makes taxing it okay. My decision to trade is just another form of human action, no different from my decision not to trade (Miseian reference there). They're both an exercise of freedom within my rights."

My support for the broken constitution is nil, but I would support it if it was fixed, because basically it is a good idea and even as far out right as I am I recognize that some form of unifying and universal organization is a pretty damn good idea, and the idea the founders had is the best I have seen for people who have no concept of self control as we Americans have been shown to be. Therefore excise taxes as described in the constitution have to be considered legit by myself because otherwise that unifying and universal organization does not get funded. Excise taxes worked wonderfully well to finance government (outside of wars) as long as it behaved closely in harmony with the constitution. However, again, no where in history is there any documentation of government actually demanding you buy or use so that they can collect a tax. Buying or using always has been, and is today, strictly your choice. That choice may restrict your life a lot, but it is still your choice. You either do it willingly and voluntarily, or in acquiescence as you attempt to avoid paying all the taxes that you can.

"You are completely misinterpreting me. I am not making an argument about how I think things should be, but about how things are."

No sir, I haven't misinterpreted you once. I understood your stance and your belief perfectly, and that is what I have been addressing. You just don't want to acknowledge the truth I have been putting in front of you.

Sir, your position has reflected the belief that though it should not be, the fact is that you believe you must live in the world of conventional wisdom, that you have no choice. That is not true. You always have choice, always. You can divorce your life from conventional wisdom. It may be difficult and sometimes even down right hard to do so in this world today, but it is your choice.

You're not a victim of anything but your own mind and enculturation, and so far you have shown no inclination to think about how you are controlled by those.

Why am I bothering to come back and take another lick at the inert pony? Because all of the people need to remember, or learn, that nothing changes for the better until people recognize that they have the power if they just have courage to use it.

I'm not sure what you're trying to say about me at the end (sounds pretty presumptuous), but I agree with you on the rest of the post so let's leave it at that :)

Because those are public use/public goods provided by the gov't itself.

The requirement that you (as an individual) purchase a particular product at a particular interval is no different legally than if they told you that you had to purchase a new car every 5y, a new house every 20 and at least a dozen shirts yearly.

Those sound silly, but the legal ability to make you buy something you don't necessarily, of the type that is specified for you and the rate that is specified for you has no peculiar application to insurance.

Taking the different justification of it as a tax (as one NPR "expert" did) it is also unique in the sense that it is a tax on being. Most taxes tax some activity (working::income, driving::gasoline). That activity might be difficult to avoid, but it is possible to avoid it. This simply taxes existing, which is new.

How in the world they can argue that falls within the Congress's well-establish ability to tax, and totally ignore that the text explicitly states that no capitation be levied except in proportion to the census (A1S9) is beyond me. It is just a bunch of hand waving that should have lead to any "legal expert" that espoused it getting fired in disgrace.

Whether they're 'public goods' or not is another matter (some of them are, some of them aren't), and it should be up for debate as well. Either way, you are at the very least being forced to 'buy government.'

I agree 100% with you that government requiring you to buy health insurance is different from taxing for public goods and that it is a horrible idea. All I'm saying is that the argument that "For the first time in the history of our country the federal government's saying you've got to buy something" is wrong. The government does that all the time.

Not only is it not Constitutional, it's not even close, not even a gray area.

A precedent for an individual mandate may be Affirmative Action, which in a sense compels you to buy a (un)certain quantity of a certain type of laborer or face fines (lawsuits). I suppose one could challenge the constitutionality of AA, but it seems pretty similar to a health insurance mandate.

I sure hope he's right (and the right side wins in the inevitable court battle.

Given the nature of the court since the 30's, I'm not so hopeful.

No where in the Constitution, no article, no section, no clause, no amendment, is there any authority for government, no branch, no department, and no agency, is there any authority for government to force, compel, or coerce any one to buy anything.

No amount of conjuring up fantasy will make words appear where they aren't already, nor will it change the meanings of the words that are there.

The Constitution is not written in a mysterious language, it is easily read and understood by the working man of 1787 with the average intellect of that man in 1787.

Oh uh, that is the problem I guess. 1787 compared to 2009. Perhaps we have gone downhill in a lot of our understandings since then.

Vidyohs, Sadly, this is a losing battle. End result its no different than the government forcing people to buy insurance through taxation (e.g., Unemployment, Medicare, SS, SSDI, etc). Whatever happens with constitutional challenge, the days of relying on the protections enumerated in the constitution to limit the government's encroachment onto our liberties are over.

I don't rely on the Constitution to protect my rights, I am very familiar with the SCOTUS ruling that states that the government has no obligation or duty to protect my rights, and they have said so more than once in more than one way. That means of course that the Constitution does not protect my rights.

Protecting my rights is my job and I do a fair job at it.

For instance, those taxes you mentioned, I only pay excise taxes that I can not find a way around....yet. And, I am doing a decent job at protecting my right to do as I do.

The losing battle is in getting people to understand that they aren't helpless.

I must admit that even though I hate the government handling anything, this idea is not completely bad. If you don't want to take health insurance, that should be your right, but then you should demonstrate the necessary funds to take care of your medical costs. If someone chooses not to take any form of insurance, I don't want to pay for his emergency medical treatment. If he cannot afford insurance at all, I guess that's where the public option comes in. We need to find a way to disallow the public option from competing with private insurance. In any case, I think the literal interpretation of the constitution for everything is a little anal. Come on, the America that Jefferson lived in has changed a lot over the years.

"If you don't want to take health insurance, that should be your right, but then you should demonstrate the necessary funds to take care of your medical costs. If someone chooses not to take any form of insurance, I don't want to pay for his emergency medical treatment."

NO! We all have the right to choose our own care, consistent with our own resources, and we have NO right to demand another property to provide for our care. Why is this so hard to understand and accept?

This is NOT the same as mandatory auto liability insurance, which is there to protect innocent others from your vehicular behavior. To compare the two is highly disingenuous.

>Why is this so hard to understand and accept?

Some people do not put the same value on personal property as others.
The ones who do not personal property are less inclined to be upset if their property is take from them, and more inclined to justify taking what belongs to someone else.
They have no problem with compulsory sharing, because they will do it willingly.

The very fact that presumably intelligent people can seriously be discussing whether or not government can force you, can command you, to purchase something, is indeed proof that Jefferson's America is dead, and not to our betterment. And, worse this discussion is taken seriously!

It can not in fact, nor can it in principle, WTF is wrong with you people?

Com'on udctrox, look at the language you use in your comment to me. It is the language of slave and master, flat out on your knees groveling to be and/or become part of the great collective of WE!

"If someone chooses not to take any form of insurance, I don't want to pay for his emergency medical treatment."

For Christ's Sake, man, then don't! That is the principle that Jefferson supported and one that you should be as well. If you have no relationship with someone and have not legally indicated you'll accept responsibility for him, then HTH can someone make you responsible?

How simple is this, sir. I provide for myself. If I choose not to provide for myself, I suffer the consequences, if those consequences without treatment mean I die, then I release you from any guilt you might feel, and certainly lay no obligation on you to provide for me. Let me die.

There it is done. Now wasn't that Jeffersonally simple?

Now in the interest of true spirit, you make the same declaration to me, I promise I will not interfere in your death.

So, when government comes around we can show them our mutual willingness to be responsible or irresponsible and suffer the consequences be they negative.

Oh, but wait. Is this exactly what you are afraid of, Sir? To be on your own and suffer no interference, even with your death?

We all die buddy, and we can't interpret our self out of it. How's is that for being anal?

Fair enough! All I'm saying is that right now people just wander into emergency care and get treated for free. People go to ERs simply because hospitals are obligated to give emergency care. We are spending that money right now. If a bare-minimum watered-down public option can do that more efficiently (without competing with private options) aren't we being anal if we're opposing it merely on principle? We should instead be demanding proof from the public option hawks that said public option would be cheaper than paying for the emergency care of uninsured people.
As for collective WE, I am for whatever lowers the bottom line for me. While I resent government involvement, if a certain government action can prevent us from hemorrhaging money into wasteful emergency care, we might need to bite the bullet.
Ultimately, it should be made clear that people who willfully don't purchase medical insurance and cannot cover their costs should be allowed to die without our interference. How many people are willing to do that?

I am for whatever lowers the bottom line for me.

Not me. This may be impolitic to say, but since I'm not a politician, I don't care. There is more at stake than the bottom line. You might find an instance where freedom costs more than nannyism. I don't care. If you give them even the camel's nose then you have accepted that the camel will be joining you, soon.

... aren't we being anal if we're opposing it merely on principle?

The adage that, if you compromise with evil, then evil has won comes to mind.

... if a certain government action can prevent us from hemorrhaging money into wasteful emergency care, we might need to bite the bullet.

Do you know of any government action that has ever prevented hemorrhaging of money? If you can think of one, or two, or even ten; compare that to the tens, or hundreds-of-thousands of times that government opens the vein even wider. Are you really willing to risk your ability to get timely, quality health care on a politician's promise that, "this time, we'll get it right"?

Well said, Bro!

It's Hayek's Road in action.
Most of his detractors, wrongly state, that because X social democratic country isn't a complete dictatorship by some arbitrary years, therefore Hayek must be wrong. That's complete hogwash. They don't understand that it the babysteps that lead to down the Road. This mandate is just another step. FDR's court packing started us down this path, which the political class has been doing it's best to keep us on ever since. Both parties have been steadily walking down the Road. It's just that the Democrats give it a little more gas every now and then.

Ayn Rand's ideals were a rejection of her experience in a "prison," and her reaction would be the same as anyone else escaping it, except she put an ideology to it and described its opposite, individual freedom. This is what Americans today are rejecting because they have never experienced what it is like living in a "prison," although Obama is building the cage now under the guise of community interests being more important than self-interest. See Save Pebble Droppers & Prosperity on claysamerica.com.

I think I understand where your heart lies on the issue; but the fact that Congress can even make the proposal of mandatory purchase and it isn't met with complete derision instantly by ALL the people should tell us all that the road to slavery isn't long, it is complete, and the government feels pretty secure in the knowledge that they have control.

Look at the acceptance here, of all places!

I think you are a wonderful asset to this board and I read your comments with great cheer always, but I think your last sentence in this post is overstating it a little, no? The only people on this board who I see accepting the government's overreaching lying down are those who are eternally reaching for the government teat and wish for the freedom lovers among us to do the same. I haven't seen a comment on this thread by any of our respected voices for liberty (I won't attempt to name names for fear of leaving someone out) saying that its ok or that they want to be forced to buy health insurance. Only the "true believers" and a few unknown new posters seem to be ok with it. If those are the people you are talking about, then this comment is withdrawn and I agree 100% that they are a sad lot.

Sir,

Okay you caught me. I engaged in a bit of hyperbole, the soap box technique comes out once in awhile, :-D, sorry it won't happen again 'til the next time.

And your observation about those who seem to be okay with it is well taken. The ones that seem to be accepting that government can tell us what to buy are on the margin here, and appear to be uncertain yet about this freedom thing.

My hyperbole was used in an intent to maybe encourage them to step over to our side, or come up with better reasons for not doing so.

Thanks for the compliment, I appreciate it.

Fair enough. I hope then that my comment didn't dissuade any who may have been taken by your persuasive tactic then. I too am past the point of tolerating such gross, forcible squashing of my individual freedom as a human being. Fight on.

Come on, the America that Jefferson lived in has changed a lot over the years.

Yes, that's why there is a provision for constitutional amendment.

"Does anyone really believe, in his heart of hearts, that the Constitution should be interpreted so literally as to authorize every conceivable law that would not violate a specific constitutional clause?"

-Richard Posner

This is actually a condemnation of those who consider the Constitution a "Living Document", one that is open to use in anyway they choose.

A lawyer, clever people, can twist any word. They can even deceive you by creating new definitions of words, call those new words "terms", and compile them in Law Dictionaries, and use those "terms" to screw you.

It is up to you and I to be educated enough to know and smell the stink whenever they try to pull that shit on us, and to slap them down.

"Today, when a concerted effort is made to obliterate this point, it cannot be repeated too often that the Constitution is a limitation on the government, not on private individuals -- that it does not prescribe the conduct of private individuals, only the conduct of the government -- that it is not a charter for government power, but a charter of the citizen's protection against the government."
-Ayn Rand

His question is backwards. A literal interpretation of the Constitution would prohibit every conceivable law that is not explicitly authorized by it.

Sadly, far too many people are oblivious to that fact.

I don't really have a position on this, as I'm not a legal expert.

Why is the position that individual mandates are constitutional, as they fall under the federal government's enumerated power to regulate interstate commerce, mistaken?

Why is the position that individual mandates are constitutional, as they fall under the federal government's enumerated power to regulate interstate commerce, mistaken?

Because compelling all people to buy a good/service is not the same thing as regulating interstate commerce. The one thing is not the other. The former is not an instantiation of the latter. These are all English words and words have definitions and the latter's does not include the former. I'm not sure how else to explain it.

You may as well be asking why operating concentration camps doesn't fall under the federal government's enumerated power to regulate interstate commerce. Well, why doesn't it?

If you think a health insurance mandate falls under regulating interstate commerce, what doesn't fall under the purview of regulating interstate commerce? I'm just at a loss here. Do words mean anything whatsoever?

Like the pic, favorite western!

The Commerce Clause says "Congress shall have the power to regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes."

As originally intended, the point of this clause was to stop states from enacting tariffs on goods from other states, thereby paving the way for a national economy (IE free trade). Thus, the originalist argument against the modern Supreme Court's expansive reading of the commerce clause is that it only grants Congress the power to regulate state participation in commerce. There's also a pretty valid textualist argument about the plain meaning of "among," but the originalism is stronger IMO.

However, in the early '30s when Roosevelt threatened to pack the Court, the Justices acquiesced in his monarchal fantasies and construed the commerce clause to allow Congress to regulate any commerce which occurred between two parties (be they states or private individuals/companies) in different states. Since then, the Commerce Clause has been used as justification for the feds regulation of just about any activity where money changes hands.

However, up until now, Congress has only used its supposed commerce power to regulate when and under what conditions individuals can voluntarily spend their money on goods and services they desire. That's bad enough, but as Professor Barnett rightly points out, it is even more egregious for the government to force private individuals to trade with each other.

Which leads to another huge point of contention that doesn't get mentioned enough- How Congress has used its fictional "authority to regulate interstate commerce" to absolutely trample on the freedom of association of individuals.