States rebelling against idea of insurance mandates

One of the byproducts of the intense debate over ObamaCare and the proposed entre' to a government takeover of about 1/6th of our economy is a renewed interest on the part of state legislators in the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution.  The amendment states:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor
prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States
respectively, or to the people.

In other words, the scope and power of the federal government is (supposed to be) limited, therefore it can't be construed to extend to allowing Washington DC to mandate that private citizens purchase a specific consumer product.  In this case, a health insurance policy.  (via the AP)

Although President Barack Obama's push for a health care overhaul has stalled, conservative lawmakers in more than two-thirds of the states are forging ahead with constitutional amendments to ban government health insurance mandates.

The proposals would assert a state-based right for people to pay medical bills from their own pocketbooks and prohibit penalties against those who refuse to carry health insurance.

In many states, the proposals began as a backlash to Democratic health care plans
pending in Congress. But instead of backing away after a Massachusetts election gave Senate Republicans the filibuster power to halt the health care legislation, many state lawmakers are ramping up their efforts with new enthusiasm.

The mandate aspect of ObamaCare seems to be what has served as the "straw" that's breaking the Tenth Amendment backs of so many state governments.  Not that its size and cost aren't a problem, but the fact that this bill would represent the first time in our nation's history that the national government had mandated individual purchase of a product - as well as making it a felony, with fines all the way up to jail time if you don't obey.

That led to a new constitutional question, (whether such an individual mandate was constitutional), as opposed to the older question of state government mandates and regulation of commerce.

Of course, if any real attention (or adherence) had been paid to the Tenth Amendment for the past few generations, the national government would not be anywhere near as large or costly as it is today.  Which underlines how smart the people that gave us our Constitution were to begin with.  And how foolish we've been to ignore them.