I agree that courts, even the Supreme Court, can err.  However, it does not change the fact that once they rule, we are all bound by the precedent they create.  Arguably, the interpretation of nearly every provision of the Constitution has been expanded beyond what the founding fathers intended.  Nevertheless, that is the interpretation of the Constitution we now have.  I don't see the point in arguing that any health care bill is unconstitutional because I don't believe that any challenge on that point would succeed. 

You can claim that our founding fathers would not approve - but you just can't argue that it is unconstitutional.

Best,
Robert A. Franco
SOURCE OF TITLE