>>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?

Maybe you should ask Mitt Romney: "No more free riding, where an individual says, ‘I’m not going to pay, even though I can afford it.... the individual mandate is the ultimate conservative idea... [ people should not ] look to government to take care of them if they can afford to take care of themselves."

The "fact" is that this no longer is to with facts. It's to do with shafting the other side. The system has lost sight of its purpose.

>>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)

The fact that matters is that the Supreme Court found fault but did NOT strike it down as unconstitutional, contrary to the expectations of many detractors of the bill. In the days when Congress was interested in governing rather than shafting the other side, the imperfect bill would have gone to the joint committees to be polished. Which is what 29% of polled citizens think should be happening now.

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

If it's unconstitutional, its the role of the Supreme Court to strike it down. Didn't happen. QED.

>>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?

My observations relate to the need to govern. This is the beginning of the end if voters dare not change governments because the new incumbents will starve out legislation and make it impossible to plan for your future as various institutions flip flop in and out of favor and therefore funding.

>>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.

They're parochial points firmly anchored on one side of the partisan political position. I've posted latest survey results: if there is no mandate for Congress to starve the law, what is your explanation?

>>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.

Protect them against their wishes? Big Brother knows best? Your words, not mine.