ObamaCare hasn't even been passed, and Idaho has already enacted law that compels the state's attorney general to sue the federal government to block enactment of the health care-welfare bill's provision that forces individuals to purchase health insurance. The AP story snarkily notes, "Constitutional law experts say the movement is mostly symbolic because federal laws supersede those of the states." But the article quotes neither a "constitutional law expert" nor the Constitution. I will bypass quoting a constitutional law expert, too, but because I reject the notion that the Constitution is so mystical that it requires an expert to explain it. It's pretty straightforward, especially so on the relationship between the states and the federal government they created. Here's the 10th amendment: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." In other words, if the Constitution does not explicitly grant certain powers to the federal government, the federal government doesn't have those powers. Now, can somebody tell me where does the Constitution delegate to the federal government the power to force me to buy health care from some company or government entity?

Just throwing thios out there, but I imagine that the arguments that will be used will be based on the Fed's power under the commerce clause and another argument can be made uder the auspices of equal protection. Someone will try to throw them against the wall and make them stick. Commerce will be the big challenge.

The way that the Supreme Court has interpreted the Commerce Clause, the Court would say that if Congress were to regulate the number of squares of toilet paper you use per week, that would be a valid exercise of Congress's power to regulate interstate commerce.

Which is one reason why I so deeply hate our courts.

You hate a bunch of guys who died years ago then. The Court expanded the commerce clause in the early part of the 20th century and only started to reign it in in the later part of the century. The problem, if there is one, happened a long time ago.

It started for the most part in 1937, and was a repudiation of precedent.

Yes, it did start a long time ago, but that makes it no less illegitimate. Nor is it a defense of modern judges' continuing to defy plain constitutional text.

I'm really surprised by your language "The problem, if there is one." How can it not be a problem that our courts allow Congress to use the Interstate Commerce Clause as a pretext to regulate things that are neither interstate nor commerce?

This is the only answer to stopping the beast. States have to start nullifying congressional acts.