by Nicole Flatow
Pop quiz: What is the central constitutional provision at issue in the Supreme Court’s review of the Affordable Care Act? If you said the Commerce Clause, you’re one step ahead of many of the tea partiers who protested outside the Supreme Court during oral arguments.
Responding to questions from staff at the Constitutional Accountability Center, tea partiers bearing signs that read “Obamacare is unconstitutional” couldn’t name any part of the Constitution that they believe the law violates.
“Well, I should know better. I should be able to answer that question and I can’t,” said one protester in a video produced by CAC, “Tea Party vs. The Constitution: ObamaCare Edition.”
“If you read the Constitution, there’s nothing in there about health care,” said another.
Others, when told that the Commerce Clause is what authorized Congress to pass the law, said the Commerce Clause was “added later” and was not part of the original Constitution.
And when the interviewer tried to correct them by pointing out that the Commerce Clause is in Article 1, Section 8 of the original Constitution, one protester responded, “There’s no use in arguing about that because I don’t think either of us know for sure.”
Watch the full video, including facts from experts who know what the Constitution actually says, below:
The Senate confirmed 
easingly has difficulty, as The Washington Post’s Dana Milbank 
The current foreclosure crisis constitutes a monumental civil rights issue. Communities of color were targeted for risky mortgage loans, have experienced disproportionately high foreclosure rates, and have been stripped of vast amounts of wealth because of discriminatory lending practices. From 2005 to 2009, 
rnment can make people pay for health care through health insurance. They take issue only as to when the government can compel that purchase, arguing that no one can be forced to buy insurance before they need to pay for health care. The challengers also admit that the federal government could force everyone to pay higher taxes to cover the health care costs of those without insurance. Nor do they deny that the federal government can require doctors to provide emergency care to those without health insurance, and then to allow those doctors to pass along the costs of that care to the rest of us through higher insurance premiums and taxes – indeed, that is how our system currently operates. Finally, the challengers acknowledge that the states themselves could pass laws mandating that all their citizens purchase health insurance, as Massachusetts has done.