In a recent video produced by the Cato Institute, attorney David Rivkin (picture, left) declared that the individual mandate of ObamaCare is unconstitutional. He described that particular provision of the year-old health care law as violative of “centuries of settled case law,” and as “fundamentally different from every law regulating commerce that Congress has ever enacted since the the first days of our Republic.”

ObamaCare celebrates its one-year anniversary on Wednesday, March 23. Believe it or not, it’s been one year since President Obama signed into law the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010. This act, together with its younger sibling, the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act (who turns the big 1 on March 30), are the duo known collectively as ObamaCare.

A federal district court judge in Richmond, Virginia, denied the federal government’s motion to dismiss the Commonwealth of Virginia’s lawsuit challenging the insurance mandate of ObamaCare. The August 2 decision clears the way for a trial on the merits of Virginia’s claim.

President Obama is under fire from the Left and the Right after his decision to recess appoint Dr. Donald Berwick to head the agency that oversees the Medicare and Medicaid bureaucracies.

The latest controversy brewing over President Obama's proclivity for circumventing the legislative branch (and the Constitution) is his recess appointment of Dr. Donald Berwick to head the monstrous Medicare and Medicaid bureaucracy. Those opposing Berwick's appointment describe him as a "radical" and a "socialist," while supporters laud his "humanity" and "irrefutable qualifications."

The existence of the ObamaCare provision that forces every American, regardless of income, ability or personal preference to purchase a qualifying health insurance policy has been well reported, little attention has been paid to a similar mandate that will be far more wide-reaching, far costlier, and far more destructive to the attempts by hard-working Americans to protect their wealth.

The U.S. government is using the Commerce and Supremacy Clauses as its constitutional basis for passing its healthcare reform bill, but it misrepresents the Constitution.

This is the final and perhaps the most important installment in the five-part survey of the law we have named for its chief patron: ObamaCare. I have identified the various tax increases; the advocates' preposterous pretexts for its enactment; the defects of many of those arguments, including the Commerce Clause and the Supremacy Clause; and the noble efforts being made by several state legislatures and executives to nullify the unconstitutional acts of Congress and its accompanying mandates.

A new Gallup poll reports that President Barack Obama's approval rating has dropped below 50 percent for the first time since his inauguration. Respondents in that poll indicated that the healthcare law (the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act) that the President signed on March 23 amid praise and proclamations is just too costly.

On March 23, 2010, attorneys general from 18 states filed suit against the national government in the United States District Court, Northern District Florida, accusing it of committing “an unprecedented encroachment on the liberty of individuals living in the Plaintiffs’ respective states, by mandating that all citizens and legal residents of the United States have qualifying healthcare coverage or pay a tax penalty.”