"To be or not to be, . . ." Remarkable that this case of commerce clause construction will depend upon whether *not* acting is really acting. A speed-read of Hudson's opinion persuades me it is eminently sensible, which of course means nothing, as it now will make its way up to the Supremes for Kennedy to decide if *not* choosing to insure is really an activity because you are therefore choosing to have the govt pay for your medical needs, which "in the aggregate" would have a substantial impact on interstate commerce. Whence liberty?

If Justice Kennedy does decide that not involving oneself in interstate commerce is indeed involving oneself in interstate commerce, then we will have entered a brave new world of Federal power. If, under the commerce clause, Congress can force individuals to purchase a product, what can't they do? Honestly, what would be the limits to their authority?

Agreed, Andrew. A thousand times agreed. To get a sense of some elite opinion (i.e., law profs and such) on this subject, folks should look at the "Room for Debate" online column hosted by the NY Times. The comments are brief and telling. I like Randy Barnett.