Why this ObamaCare repeal gives Democrats a fright

as long as there are subsidies i don't care if it does or not.

MAJ James Woods - Again, this is NOT comparable to a FEDERAL mandate to purchase insurance based on existence with no other action. I know you want to find an example to make your point, but this won't do it. You leapt from a state requirement as a condition for operating a motor vehicle on public roads to something that applies to all of society to now the Constitution is a living document. That fails every logic test ever written.
And let's be very clear - the Constitution is NOT a living document, no matter how much progressive activists want to behave like it is. The meaning of the Constitution doesn't change to match society unless it is amended. I have no idea what point you're trying to make with the "patriarchal society" comment, but it has nothing to do with whether the Federal government has the constitutional power to mandate the purchase of any product or service.

Lt Col Mark Avery - You're so stuck on the term 'federal mandate' and totally dismissing the purpose of insurance. It's like watching Paul Ryan's PowerPoint brief media on how healthy people contributing to a pool of funds that helps lower cost for sick people is bad business and in his opinion not how insurance is supposed to work. Whether it's a state or federal level mandate, the point remains that affordable insurance requires maximized participation of individuals.
If the Constitution wasn't a living document then there wouldn't be the number of amendments that exist today. Not sure how you define 'living document' but as far as I'm concern it's designed to be amended as the country grows and evolves. Finally, let me help you with the "patriarchal society" context; as meaning, the founding fathers was part of a European patriarchal culture that belittled women and non-Europeans. Unless you're about to tell me that even the early American woman was treated equally then in every way they are treated today; that early America wasn't a system of society or government controlled by men. Did that help or should I continue laughing?

MAJ James Woods - Yes, I'm stuck on the term "federal mandate" because that's what Obamacare imposed, and this discussion was about Obamacare/ACA. I'm not dismissing the purpose of insurance, only the constitutional authority of the Federal government to impose a mandate to purchase that commercial product. There isn't one, and you haven't even tried to identify one. You have tried to thoroughly confuse the issue with all manner of unrelated arguments.
Don't confuse the authority granted by the Constitution for it to be amended with the gross misrepresentation by progressive activists that it is therefore a living document. It's their term, not mine. What they mean by that term is that the meaning of the words in the Constitution change on their own as society changes. That is not the case. The meaning doesn't change, but the document can be amended. I am a male, was born male, and choose to stay that way. If I didn't like that, I could have surgery. I can't just decide being male is no longer fashionable and morph into a female. Amending the Constitution is surgery. The problem comes when people quit reading the Constitution for what it says and instead read into it what they want to make it say because they know the country will not amend it to have the meaning they desire.
Don't be condescending. If you're not willing to have a reasoned, logic-based, factual discussion, then I choose not to engage any further. You don't need to help me understand the concepts, but you also can't drag in irrelevant issues and expect that to be persuasive. If that causes you to laugh, then have at it.
Out.

Lt Col Mark Avery - "A living document or dynamic document is a document that is continually edited and updated." So the authority granted to amend the Constitution falls in line with describing the Constitution as a living document that can be edited and updated as necessary with the authority of our government and vote of the American people.
Now the Constitution doesn't define marriage nor does it define gender nor outlaws medical procedures like abortion but as stated earlier a process exists that allows any of these issues to be debated as to whether an amendment be created and voted on to make it defined by the Constitution. The problem doesn't come from people quit reading it; it comes from misinterpretation; otherwise, the words "all men are created equal" would've been sufficient enough to eliminate slavery and give both minorities and women the right to vote. But do go on with your interpretation.
Finally, healthcare as a mandate is reasonable and rational from a public health and financial stance. Compared to the many random things our taxes pay for, healthcare should be viewed as a positive. I gladly share my condescending tone with those who rewrite history (i.e. unable to identify America founded on European and patriarchal ideals that needed to change) and then promote self-interest values at the expense of American culture. Yes I'm laughing in a very condescending tone. So don't bother.