Sometimes i get a bit too worked up to make cogent arguments, and so resort to being as loud and angry as i can.

I'm all for single-payer, so long as it works out some of the inefficiencies that such a system is prone to (though i would rather have inefficient single payer than what we have now, as my argument with Samuel indicated), but as I said, it's unlikely to happen. We need real reform now, and not in 50 years which will be the next time anyone gets bold enough to try this again, and given its necessity, the constitution should flex to incorporate it so long as it is indeed not a gross violation, which then is where the argument circles back around. The mandate is necessary in order to regulate a matter of interstate concern, though not by any means the best means to regulate it, in the choice that sits before the Court, we have a choice between granting congress necessary powers to enact legislative goals that are enumerated by the constitution (e.g. the regulation of interstate commerce), or denying them those powers for reasons that are not couched in the constitution at all.

The precedent here lies with the mandate.

Except it doesn't... the bolded makes my point.

"It's unconstitutional, but we should allow it because it will help people."

Is what the bolded says... the fact that you had to qualify "gross" indicates you admit it is indeed a violation.

You just don't see it as a big one.

You are directly argueing that they should measure in how important the law is and rule that it's constiutional because of it.  Despite the fact that it is in fact... a violation.

So it's clearly unconsitutional, you just think they should close a blind eye to that fact.

The gross qualifier is because i am a "living document" supporter, believing that the spirit of the constitution should be obeyed and the letter thus re-interpreted as the times demand, because its the only way for the document to endure as it has in the past. Amendments only tell part of the story of how the constitution has remained valid down into days that the Founders could never have foreseen. In this case it is within the spirit of the document to allow this, even if it looks wrong on paper.

Which means you think the consitution should be changed with the times.

Which means you think things that were previously unconsitutional should be made constitutional with the times.

Which means you think judges should make things suddenly constituional that wasn't constiutiotnal when needed.

Which means my point completely stands that this is unconstituional, but you want it to be cosnitutional because you think it's needed now.

Which makes my point for me again.

Even though it clearly isn't something that's needed since there are other legislative measures out there that just aren't being used.  Again, just because congress might not want to try single payer healthcare coverage for "50 years" doesn't mean that's not a valid option for congress.

It's just oen they refuse to execute.

Its not going to drive prices down. Its going to force more money into the system. Things will still cost the same, but you will be forcing others to foot the bill. Not lowering the bill. I think the only way to get costs down would be to relax the requirements to become a doctor. It takes too long and too much money to train a doctor in the US. Does Obama care change any of that? I haven't read it a long time so i am not sure if there are measures in it that would effect that but i dont believe there is.

I mean, now correct me if i'm wrong here but your argument boils down to.

"The supreme court should say the ACA is unconstitutional, because congress has decided it doesn't want to regulate healthcare more in the constitutional ways it could do it (Like single payer.) "

Not that it's not regulating it at all... cause it totally is. You're arguing Congress should get new powers, simply because it doesn't like it's old powers and wants to do it in a way that was previously completely unconstitutional.

So basically, all congress ever has to do to get more power, is to refuse to use the tools it has to regulate something.  Demanding we give it other powers with which to regulate something.  Although I guess not refuse to regulate something... since healthcare is being regulated....

so congress just has to refuse regulating something as much as you'd like and demand new powers previously unconstituonal to regualte it.

I'm just opposed to the "Constructionist" view of things, in that the document is only as strong as it is practically applicable, and the courts have a history of thinking that way, as with the World War I era sedition laws (which i'm not cool with, but still...). The WWI laws were clearly a violation of the letter of the first amendment, but less so with the spirit of it because of the increased role of propaganda and the potential for enemy spies and saboteurs that came with the early 20th century.

We've still never supported why it's unconstitutional, here. Is there judicial precedent that struck down other notions of regulated commercial activity? "Everyone has to buy this," sounds weird on paper, and sounds sort of like it should be unconstitutional, but i haven't seen the evidence for this outside of perhaps the 10th Amendment.

You aren't even really making a living document arguement though, your saying congress won't regulate something harder one way, by chocie... so therefore we have to give them the power to regulate something more another way, so they'll do it. 

That's completely asinine.

Just tell the truth.  You think this law should exist.  No matter what the constituion says, and therefore would be happy if it was ruled consitutional even if there was a specific ammendment ruling it unconstituional, and would think that was the right call because you think it's the right call for the times.

Aka, you think anything in the consitution that you deem harmful for the country isn't valid.