If you think the health care mandate is clearly unconstitutional, this is probably over your head...

I don't like talking down to anyone who would read this blog, but it's rather frustrating to hear amateur opinions as to why Congress supposedly lacks the power to enforce the individual mandate portion of the health care bill. It is most definitely not "unconstitutional." It may be unconstitutional in YOUR FUCKING OPINION. But let's not get that twisted with, like, the law...yo.

As this article so adequately details, it really doesn't matter what you or I think about the constitutionality of the mandate, it really only matters what the court concludes:

In his decision this week, Judge Hudson also mentioned the Comstock case, endeavoring to show why it didn’t save the statute. In my view, his effort to wish the case away was unpersuasive, but my view is not the one that matters. The view that ultimately may count the most is that of Chief Justice Roberts. As everyone knows, he was once William Rehnquist’s law clerk. So my question, as the health care debate continues on its path to the Supreme Court, is this: When John Roberts thinks about his former boss and mentor, which Rehnquist does he see? The one who started the federalism revolution, or the one who ended it?

So please, share your opinions and feel however you feel about the mandate as a government intrusion, but try to understand that it really isn't a black and white answer regarding wrong or right. It just sounds like you either a) don't understand "The Constitution," or b) don't understand how the system works.