[heimidal]

That's rather speculative. The Democrats in question lost their seats because of voter grief after an enormous marketing effort against them. It had nothing to do with the Constitutionality of Obamacare, and unless you're a Constitutional expert, you really have no leg to stand on in making such claims.

[rrc]

I'd actually disagree. The constitution explicitly enumerates the powers of the federal government. Many (most?) modern federal programs, departments, and laws aren't _explicitly_ listed. The government has gotten around this limitation by claiming that the constitution grants the federal government the right to regulate interstate commerce, which can be interpreted as narrowly or widely as you like. Up till now, the courts have allowed this wider interpretation.

I think it's every citizen's right - even duty - to be questioning these things rather than leaving it to some "Constitutional expert".

I'd encourage the original poster to drop the loaded term "ObamaCare" and instead explain why he believes the health care bill is not allowed under the interstate commerce clause. In my opinion, it isn't a very difficult thing to argue.

[guelo]

If congress is constitutionally allowed to tax then the individual mandate is constitutional. Imagine a law where they would raise your taxes and give you a health insurance policy, it would be effectively the same as a mandate.

[heimidal]

I should have been clearer.

Every American has the right to question whether or not a law is constitutional. However, without expertise in constitutional law and elections, it is speculative to make claims that senators were ousted because voters believed a law to be unconstitutional.