This soldier, back from Iraq (it is presumed), is lecturing a U.S. Senator about the contents of the U.S. Constitution.
He's one of those strict constructionists who thinks that the Government has no constitutional right, whatsoever, to pass laws other than those specifically outlined in Section 8, Article I. of the U.S. Constitution.
Unfortunately--and I'm speaking as a full throated and lifelong conservative here--the soldier doesn't know what he is talking about.
Government run health care could be on its own quite constitutional, under Article I, Section 8, Clause 3:
[The Congress shall have power] To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes.It is the Interstate Commerce clause which would, alas, empower Congress to enact government run healthcare.
The Interstate Commerce clause also empowers Congress to enact and enforce civil rights laws.
So if we accept our soldier's interpretation of the Constitution, not only does health care go out the window, so does the federal government's power to ban three bathrooms, segregated schools, hotels and buses, and "Negroes Need Not Apply" signs at factories.
I'm not implying this soldier is a racist!
His constitutional interpretation leads us directly back to the dark ages.
It is perfectly OK to attack government run health care (a phrase I couldn't use with the franking privilege, BTW, but never mind)--in particular as it would likely violate the civil rights of the unborn. It is also perfectly OK to attack it on practical grounds.
But attacking it as "unconstitutional" due to some antedeluvian (read, pre-1865) reading of the Constitution is wrongheaded and achieves precisely squat.
The senator owes this soldier no apology. On these grounds at least... whether we like it or not.
P.S. There are those who would read me out of the conservative movement for making this obvious observation. Let me preemptively respond to those by respectfully saying this: If you think I'm not conservative enough, then frak you.