Typical of Millhiser & ThinkProgress to attempt to bully legitimate opposition, the only available strategy to those who’ve already lost the argument and won’t honorably concede. Of course, his job, career, and reputation are on the line, so I get his desperation. Too bad he chose the wrong side.
Millhiser’s chosen bullying tactic is to inappropriately marginalize those who question Congress’ authority to force everyone to buy something merely because they exist. He calls us “Tenthers,” a lame attempt to sweep us to the fringe along with Birthers and Truthers. The Tenther moniker even has it’s own Wikipedia entry. Created on Sept 26, 2009, the article is already slated for deletion for violating Wikipedia’s general notability guideline – which means someone just made it up.
For the record, I’m a Firster Through Tenther. 
Concern over government overstepping it’s authority is a very basic concern, shared by everyone who is sane. It’s somehow fringe to not entirely trust those in charge? It’s odd that someone of Millhiser’s stature would so readily dismiss something so fundamental to a functioning democracy. Does Millhiser advocate unconditional trust of all government authority? Please. Here he goes:
Pelosi is right to be dismissive of the fringe right-wing theory behind this question, which has no basis in the Constitution itself. Article I of the Constitution gives Congress the power “[t]o regulate commerce…among the several states” as well as the authority to “make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution” its power to regulate commerce.-Een ultra-conservative Justice Antonin Scalia acknowledges that these constitutional provisions give Congress sweeping authority to enact laws that regulate “economic activity.”
Yes, the Commerce Clause. A favored liberal citation to justify power grabs – because it just gives so much wiggle room:
The clause does not represent some indication of a shadowy list of “other powers” as needed to suit your convenience. It simply establishes a mandate for Congress to be able to enact legislation to carry out the specific powers which are granted. If we were to assume that this empowers Congress to do whatever it wants as long as it promotes the “general welfare” then just as Professor Hutchinson argues from the other side, the rest of the document could just be thrown in the trash.
Further, I must wonder if Millhiser actually reads the cases he sources because Justice Antonin Scalia had a lot more to say than just the words “economic activity:”
This principle is not without limitation. In Lopez and Morrison, the Court–conscious of the potential of the “substantially affects” test to “ ‘obliterate the distinction between what is national and what is local… [The cited case] rejected the argument that Congress may regulate noneconomic activity based solely on the effect that it may have on interstate commerce through a remote chain of inferences… “[I]f we were to accept [such] arguments,” the Court reasoned in Lopez, “we are hard pressed to posit any activity by an individual that Congress is without power to regulate.”
Limitations on Congressional authority? Goodness me, whoever heard of such a thing?
I hate to say it, but it’s painfully obvious that Millsner operating with an agenda in mind, he’s less interested in protecting your rights and more interested in his ’side’ retaining and gaining power.
