Constitution means whatever liberals say it means

Interestingly Charles Lane becomes a strict constructionalist when it comes to interpreting the constitutionality of healthcare:

On the merits of the issue, I agree with health reform’s supporters that one’s decision not to buy health insurance has economic ripple effects. Basically, it turns you into a free-rider and that imposes costs on everyone else in the risk pool. As Prof. Erwin Chemerinsky recently put it: “There is no constitutionally protected freedom to be able to refuse to be insured or to avoid paying for the benefits provided.”

Do you think Charles would be consistent and conclude that there is no constitutionally protected freedom to be able to have an abortion?

I didn't think so.

But, Chemerinsky is right - there is no constitutionally protected freedom to be able to refuse to be insured or to avoid paying for the benefits provided - if you think in terms of enumerated rights. It wasn't necessary when the constitution was written and first ratified. The constitution doesn't grant rights. It puts limits on Government's intrusion on our rights. From the text it is clear that making a citizen buy health insurance isn't in the purview of Congress's power. Professor Chemerinsky begs to differ, citing the commerce clause and the potential impact if "society" winds up picking up a future tab for an uninsured (where is it written that we must pay?) The commerce clause argument is a stretch when we are dealing with someone who refuses to participate in commerce. And what about the significant chunk of folks who are self insured; the ones who don't have insurance because they will pay their own way? Chemerinsky's argument is only vaild in terms of the modern court's willingness to stretch the constitution to acheive liberal ends. It will be interesting to see how the courts rule this time.

ADDITIONAL THOUGHTS:
Lane's and Chemerinsky's argument to compel people to purchase insurance hinges on covering the individual liability they potentially pose. For young people, that would normally result in a low premium. With Obamacare, however, a massive amount of a young person's premium is just wealth transfer to pay for someone else's healthcare. Wouldn't the term "free-rider" apply here? But wait, isn't this why Lane and Chemerinsky say it isn't fair for someone not to buy insurance?
Cross-posted at Anatreptic