Why are you asking questions? Make your assertions with backing evidence and people can respond meaningfully.

I did. And then some. Please go back and read Message #1584831.

This is the nature of methodology and discovery - ask impertinent questions and you're on the road towards pertinent answers. Are you suddenly questioning the posting of questions? :)

The reason for my question is that you've made prior posts assenting to the constitutionality of AHCA.

For convenience, I'll again post the questions.

1) Barack Obama has stated openly (and repeatedly) that health care is a right. His law penalizes those who choose not to seek health coverage by taxing them. These are facts. My question: how, in a free republic, can someone assert something is a "right", and yet penalize those who chose not to exercise that right?

2) The Supreme Court, in fact, declared that the individual mandate enforcement is not constitutionally protected by the Commerce clause. Five justices stated this (Roberts, Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas, and Alito). This is a fact. But Justice Roberts stated that the penalty could be construed as a tax, and therefore re-defined the AHCA bill, and voted along with Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan (the four of whom argued in the minority in support of the original context of the Commerce Clause). This is fact. (It is also a fact that Roberts has been ripped by many constitutional historians for a pretty blatant example of legislating from the bench)

It is also a fact that the U.S. Constitution contains an Origination clause, which states all revenues collected by the Treasury (IRS) must be defined first in the House. The House never discussed this as a tax. These are also facts.

So question number two: how can anyone reconcile this as Constitutional?

3) You've voiced your opposition for the actions of the House of Representatives. I'm not going to debate the merit of their actions. So question #3 - basically a yes/no question - has the House violated any laws or articles of the Constitution for their actions?

John, these are compelling points. And they're not "my points", they are points raised by many constitutional experts. I'm simply framing them into questions.

It is perfectly fine to say, "I don't know". I'm looking for an honest answer. I won't ask again.

In the "I don't know" realm - I personally don't know how I can reconcile the fact there are welfare programs (like WIC) that I "DO" care about that will lose funding in November, with the fact that the republicans, however bad-behaving sometimes, have a valid argument about protecting Americans from a horrible law.