So, it doesn't say that at all. That means your statement "You do understand that the US Constitution is a limiting document, do you not?" is not true.
Really?
"Our tenet ever was that Congress had not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but were restrained to those specifically enumerated, and that, as it was never meant that they should provide for that welfare but by the exercise of the enumerated powers, so it could not have been meant they should raise money for purposes which the enumeration did not place under their action; consequently, that the specification of powers is a limitation of the purposes for which they may raise money. "
-- Thomas Jefferson letter to Albert Gallatin, 1817
There are quotes down both sides of the issue as to what was the intent, and none of that matter now. The only thing that does matter is what the Supreme Court has interpreted to mean of the constitution today. And clearly, they just looked at Obama care and except for a few provisions, gave it the nod.
The Supreme Court's Obamacare Decision: Full Text - The Editors - The Atlantic
That was Jefferson's OPINION. Written long after the Constitution was ratified.
SCOTUS did not "give obamacare the nod"..The SCOTUS in a 5-4 decision, ruled Obamacare is a TAX.
And in doing so, permitted the ACA law to stand under Article 1 Section 8.
That in and of itself offers ACA no Congressional immunity from scrutiny or change.
In fact, the sponsors of the Law have; permitted waivers to some companies to not participate at all. Mc Donalds Corp for instance. Have permitted a one year delay for compliance by small and medium sized businesses.
At this point many on both sides of the aisle are having serious doubts as to whether or not ACA is even going to come close to working as intended.
In any event. You keep arguing the same point in the face of overwhelming facts contrary to your argument.
You insist( woefully inaccurately) that the federal government has broad and unlimited powers. You completely ignore the FACT that the US Constitution is a limiting document.
What the **** do you think the Bill of Rights is? A free pass for government to do as it wishes by political fiat?
Would you feel better is say, the right to be secure in your person and papers from unreasonable searches and seizures meant nothing? Or how about your right to a speedy trial and to face your accuser and cross examine him? How about the cops one day kick down your door and haul you off to jail. You get no phone call. No right to speak to an attorney. No trial. You are considered guilty and are not given the opportunity to have your day in court.
You insist that it's ok for the government to do this because you claim the US Constitution does not limit the power of government.
Fine. You go on believing that.
I am not going to waste my time debating an irrational idea.
You are wrong and that's that.