For all the harping on the Constitution, it's pretty clear you're never read it. Article VI clearly states that where federal laws, when constitutional, trump state law. If the Supreme Court were to rule that the mandate was constitutional, that, by definition, would invalidate state laws prohibiting the mandate.
Only if the power is SPECIFICALLY delegated.
.
And the power to regulate interstate commerce is specifically delegated.
1. If an individual chooses NOT to engage in health insurance at all, such as preferring to pay full price for health services when needed, can citizens be mandated to anyway in order to be regulated? I.e., can the state force you to buy car insurance even if you don't intend to own or drive a car, but would rather ride a bike for environmental reasons.
2. Can the federal government regulate or discriminate by religion [by limiting exemptions to just members of 501(c)(3) nonprofits in existence since 1999 whose members share medical expenses; without equally recognizing religious freedom of nonaffiliated people who believe in funding free spiritual healing to reduce the costs of and need for expensive medications and procedures, in order to serve more of the population without restriction.
3. And if the Code of Ethics for Govt Service calls for federal officials to "seek to find and employ more efficient and economical ways of getting tasks accomplished" wouldn't federal funding of health care DEMAND the practice of spiritual healing to cut the costs of health care? How can you expect to follow both the federal policies of cost-effective methods AND religious freedom at the same time? The only way I see to meet both standards is by voluntary compliance, not mandatory. The only way you can make a policy mandatory is if people are benefiting from or invoking it, which is not the case with people who do not want to be under federally mandated health insurance plans; if people have violated a law or threaten to, and owe restitution or correction, which is not the case of people who have committed no crime in not wanting to purchase federal health insurance; or if people impose a law on others, or judge or punish people by it, and thus bind themselves to the same standards, which also does not apply to all people contesting this.
If you notice, Obama himself is not required to buy into this federal health plan, but has "voluntarily" offered to purchase it. Likewise, I would argue that all citizens have equal freedom to "voluntarily" buy into it or opt out.
You can't have it both ways.
A. Either mandatory compliance, which would lead to total integration of church and state policies, where if funding and participation is required of all citizens, then people of all religions have equal right to adjust or interpret state policies to agree and accommodate their beliefs fully without contradictions or dissension, in order for there to be no conflicts in being forced to fund state policies and programs. Otherwise, dissenting or conflicting beliefs would be discriminated against or violated. Good luck with that!
B. Or voluntary compliance, which would recognize equal freedom and protections of all people, all parties, and all religious or political beliefs to endorse and fund the health programs of their choice, including church-run teaching hospitals or other charitable services, and unabridged religious freedom to "choose" effective treatments, including spiritual healing and faith-based recovery counseling that rely on individual free choice in order to work in the first place, and cannot be mandated or regulated by government.
Clearly the President is following plan B - "voluntary compliance." So how he or anybody can enforce plan A as "mandatory" without violating Constitutional ethics is beyond me.
