What the tea party wants from the Constitution

By Ezra Klein

I'm very curious to know what the GOP -- or the tea partyers they're presumably pandering to -- think will happen when every piece of legislation requires "a statement from its sponsor outlining where in the Constitution Congress is empowered to enact such legislation." What's the evidence that this will make legislation more, rather than less, constitutional, for whatever your definition of the Constitution is?

Let's take an example: Most legislation doesn't currently include a statement of constitutional authority. But there's one recent measure that did: Section 1501 of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. That is to say, the individual mandate.

[more]

generally speaking, i don't disagree with ezra klein, and if you've read much of this blog you know i'm for universal healthcare, but i suspect the individual mandate actually is unconstitutional, not because of the commerce clause but because of the due process clause. that's why obama and the dems shouldn't've dropped the public option.