Obamacare and the Commerce Clause

[The Congress shall have Power] To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian tribes;
Article I, Section 8, Clause 3.

The argument over the constitutionality of Obamacare (or rOBAMAneycare, depending on whether or not you realize that Obamacare was based on Romneycare in the state of Massachusetts) is turning on the definition of "regulate".

Obama's attorneys are arguing that "regulate" means the government can control all activity or inactivity which does or does not result in interstate commerce. They think this extends even to requiring an activity which might affect other activity in interstate commerce. In other words, they believe the commerce clause gives the federal government unlimited control over all activities of all individuals, even the power to cause activity.

This flies in the face of any concept of limited government as envisioned by the founders, and it also corrupts the meaning of the Constitution's language. The commerce clause does not contain the word "cause". Regulate and cause are not synonyms;

Regulate- to control or supervise (something, esp. a company or business activity) by means of rules or regulations

Cause- a thing which gives rise to a condition or activity.

Therefore, given the actual language, the federal government is not given the right to "cause" interstate commerce, only to regulate that which actually exists.

The outcome of the Obamacare cases will eventually depend on whether the U.S. Supreme Court is willing to stretch the Constitution beyond all reason to give the federal government unlimited power over all activities of all individuals, or whether there is some vestige of the founding father's concept of limited government still alive and kicking.