Kombiguy Loc: Cedar Rapids, IA

Didn't change my argument at all. Health care insurance isn't mentioned in the constitution, therefore should not be in the purview of the federal government. You know, that whole tenth amendment thing. That's my argument.
My Taney comment was precisely on point. Roberts is as likely to be as wrong as Taney was. The fact that a justice says something is no guarantee that he or she is correct. As to whether he is a more credible source on constitutional law, maybe, maybe not.
And I'm not whining, I'm disagreeing with the position that the federal government should be involved in health care. Unless, of course, you characterize all disagreement as whining.

Bazbo Loc: Lisboa, Portugal

Complaining that health care is not in the Constitution is a whine.

Blurryeyed Loc: NC Mountains.

I said the other day that liberals should support a federalist government, shrink the federal government back to the size that our founders envisioned, then California could keep 75% of the monies it sends to the federal government and do as they see fit, they would have a lot less to complain about during times such as these when republicans come to power as the federal government would have minimal impact on their lives and they would have all that money to fund all the programs that they currently look to the federal government to fund.