Unconstitutional Expenses thomas.barclay September 23, 2013 News Forbes.com reported earlier this week that Obamacare will increase health spending by $7,450 for a typical family of four. The author, Chris Conover, had this to say about the new health care plan: “In the interests of fair and honest reporting, perhaps it is time the mainstream media begin using ‘Affordable’ Care Act whenever reference is made to this terribly misguided law. Anyone obviously is welcome to quarrel with the Medicare actuary about their numbers. I myself am hard-put to challenge their central conclusion: Obamacare will not save Americans one penny now or in the future.” “Affordable” is right! For most American families, that’s a nice chunk of change. The whole Obamacare conversation, of course, is ironic—we shouldn’t even be having it. If the Constitution were interpreted properly, the federal government would never consider dictating its citizen’s healthcare choices. (Michael Farris explains this further, here. See 10:18.) This is why a Convention of States could be so effective: we can use the amendment process found in Article V to force Washington to follow the Constitution as it was originally intended. For example, the General Welfare Clause could be amended to add this phrase: “If the States have the jurisdiction to spend money on a subject matter, Congress may not tax or spend for this same subject matter.” This proviso would make it clear that Obamacare is unconstitutional. Obamacare is just one abuse of the overreaching federal government; there are many more. But for the first time in a long time, the States and the People have a chance to fight back. At the risk of sounding like a car insurance commercial, do you want to save $7,450? Call a Convention of States. Do you want to make your own healthcare decisions? Call a Convention of States. Do you want to limit the overreaching federal government? Call a Convention of States.