Found it

I found the letter to the Editor, I was half right. it was under a different title but one I should have figured out if I saw it which meant I skimmed right past it when I looked for it.

Anyway here it is, remember heavy duty political comment here:

Some say Obamacare is constitutional because it’s needed for those who aren’t insured so they can get medical help. That is not what makes a law constitutional. It doesn’t matter if it helps or hurts when it comes to the Constitution. 

     The Constitution does two things, foremost it restricts government to only a few powers. Second it frees the individual. Obamacare does the opposite of both of these. It doesn’t matter when the point of sell is or that it is needed to save money, what it boils down to is that it forces the individual to make a contract with a private company and changes the way the individual relates to the government. If this is ruled constitutional, the government will be able to use the same excuses and reasoning to force us to buy certain cars, join a gym, maybe even buy a cell phone to call 911 and a number of other commerce activities.

     A short word on Obamacare; yes people need help but we don’t need a monstrosity of a bill that gives many new powers directly to the Security of health and indirectly to the President to get medical help to those who need it. 

Now the extra stuff I wrote out-- parts are repeats from the Letter:

At first I thought the Founders and writers of the Constitution made a bad mistake, even with all their hard thought out freedoms and restrictions on government they left out something important. But then again they probably never thought of the idea that someone would control us by using the commerce clause to force us into commerce. But as I thought more I realized they may have covered it as one of the many ways someone would use the power of government to control us. They said that the only power the government has is what is listed in the constitution. And forcing us into a contract with a private company is not listed. 

Of course liberals like to add things to the Constitution that they find hidden: the right to privacy, the separation of State and Church and now this, are a few examples. We know what the Writers meant by the different phrases in the constitution because we have their writings on the subject. Even though there is one letter that says Separation of Church and State we also know what the context of the one letter was. There is nothing in the Federalist Papers that quotes that. And we can see by their own speeches--some of which could have been sermons--by their actions and the very first Thanksgiving what they meant. And I doubt that there is anything that would hint that the Federal government could command us to take part in commerce even if it was for our own good or would save everyone money--I don’t believe it really would but that’s another matter. 

Lastly there is the purpose of the Constitution, to list our rights, to restrict the government and to make us free. Forcing us into a contract does the opposite of all of those, even if it is the only way to help those without insurance. It isn’t, there are many ways to get health care to people. Notice I said health care not health insurance.

Yes, those on the other side like to give a couple of cases as examples of the Government using the commerce clause. But what contract was the pot farm lady forced into? With Social Security and Medicare etc. we pay the government not a private company. But in either case just because the government gets away with an action does not make it constitutional.