If, by virtue of the Constitutional grant of authority to Congress to levy taxes, the government is said to have the valid power to compel people to purchase a specific product (like health insurance) EVEN THOUGH there is no enumerated power giving the Federal Government such power, then what are we to make of "enumerated powers?" The power to compel citizens to buy health insurance (or ANY product or service) is not an enumerated power. And the Constitution grants only those powers which it enumerates to the Federal Government. All other powers are reserved respectively to the States or to the people. Yet, the Supreme Court of the United States has now ruled that Congress can compel people to buy that particular product or service all the same as an incident of the taxation authority granted in the Constitution to Congress. It is not an enumerated power, but it is not one reserved to the States or the people. It is a power the government has anyway? A non-enumerated power should be no power of the Federal Government at all. but now it is a non-enumerated power on the same plane as an enumerated power. The exception makes a mockery of the very concept of "enumerated" powers. This is the problem with the political philosophy of the modern American liberal. Under their view, the Constitutionally mandated constraints on Federal authority and power are not just challenged and tested, but trammeled. They are belittled and mocked. They are ignored and disregarded. Thus, when I see 60 Minutes interviewing the so-called "moderates" who are fleeing the Senate or being voted out of the Senate, the picture that "news" program is attempting to paint is that the institution of Congress is "broken." Why? Because they are "dysfunctional?" In what way? Well, they don't seek compromise anymore. And there is certainly some truth in that. But the larger question that is thereby presented (not one the likes of 60 Minutes would ever bother asking) is this: why is "compromise" so cherished? If a liberal Democrat seeks a vote on a proposed bill that would compel people to consume no more than 2000 calories per day or pay a "penalty" tax, then "compromise" suggests that there might be some middle ground by which a conservative or a Republican might feel it appropriate to vote for such a bill. And that's the problem. There is no valid middle ground. The whole framework of such a bill would violates the foundational principles of our Constitutional Republic. It is no less a violation of those principles if the "compromise" would permit 3000 calories or if it specified a lesser financial "tax" penalty. I do not want my Senator or Congressperson to vote for such a bill under ANY circumstances. The only vote I want them to render is a firm, resolute "NO!" -- a vote consistent with their Constitutional Oaths of Office. It may very well be that most liberals truly want to "help" America and/or the world. But their method is wrong. If, someday, we decide to "debate" the wisdom of enumerated powers and we decide to take up the whole issue of whether the Constitution is outdated, I think that is a discussion filled with peril. But still, if we choose to discuss it, we can discuss it. If we choose to change those things, then that too is open to discussion and a vote. But until that dark day, we should adhere to what the Constitution actually SAYS. This is why Chief Justice Roberts was so flatly and dangerously wrong on the ObamaCare case. And this is why the agenda of 60 Minutes is just so much pap. Sometimes, compromise is appropriate. Sometimes, however, especially on matters of principle, compromise truly is a dirty word. By and large, conservatives should not look to "compromise" with modern American liberalism. They should, instead, look to defeat it.