Why Obamacare is Constitutional

This is a little late to the game, because I've compiled it from old e-mails, but I wanted to make sure I had up here a more detailed discussion of the whole Obamacare issue. A warning: Everything I argue below is probably stated more clearly an succinctly by Akhil Amar in a recent interview, but here I go anyway.

Here's the fundamental syllogism:

1. Under Supreme Court precedent, anything regulating commerce that is not otherwise affirmatively forbidden by the Constitution is within Congress's power.
2. The ACA regulates interstate commerce.
3. Nothing in the ACA is affirmatively forbidden by any provision of the Constitution.
4. Therefore, the ACA is constitutional.

Here's the longer-winded version:

No, it's really not my money.

The Federal Government is paying me $1,200 this year to buy a house. Seriously! They took the money I paid in 2011 in home mortgage interest and property taxes, multiplied it by my tax rate, and decided to pay me $1,200. Gee, thanks, Uncle Sam!

What's that you say? They didn't pay me anything, they just reduced my taxes? I don't understand. If they're not paying me, why are they sending me a check in May? What? That was already my money and they were just borrowing it? Then why didn't I have it to begin with?

The point, of course, is that the whole idea that some amount of my paycheck is "my money" and some amount is "the government's" money is absurd. I'm not saying that's there's no such thing as private property or that people aren't entitled to earn money for their labor. I'm saying that, every April 15, the IRS performs a wacky calculation and decides how much it costs me for the privilege of living in America.