In response to the question, “Where specifically does the Constitution grant Congress the authority to enact an individual health insurance mandate?”, these are how some of our supposed representatives answered:
Sen. Bernard Sanders (I.-Vt.) “Where in the Constitution? Probably the same place that comes Medicare and Medicaid and the CHIP Program and the Veterans Administration, and the health care programs that we’ve been doing for many, many decades.” (full disclosure on Bernie, he is an avowed Socialist)
Sen. Claire McCaskill (D.-Mo.) “Well the -- we have all kinds of places where the government has gotten involved with health care and mandating insurance. (not at the same time) In most states, the government mandates the buying of car insurance (ya, if you choose to own a car, I guess we could choose to kill ourselves and therefore not need medical insurance), and I can assure everyone that if anything in this bill is unconstitutional, the Supreme Court will weigh in.”
Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D.-Calif.) “Well, I would assume it would be in the Commerce clause of the Constitution. That’s how Congress legislates all kinds of various (unconstitutional) programs.”
Sen. Mary Landrieu (D.-La.) (Of Louisiana Purchase v 2.0 Fame) “Well, we’re very lucky as members of the Senate to have constitutional lawyers on our staff, so I’ll let them answer that.(cause I don’t have the foggiest notion of what you are talking about.)
Sen. Ben Nelson (D.-Neb.) – of the famous Cornhusker Kickback “Well, you know, I don’t know that I’m a constitutional scholar (having never read the constitution myself). So, I, I’m not going to be able to answer that question.”
House Speaker Pelosi Nancy Pelosi (D.-Calif.) “Are you serious? Are you serious?” (How dare you question my authoritay! peasant!) 
And now for someone with credibility…
James Madison, American politician and political philosopher, fourth President of the United States, has been called the "Father of the Constitution," he was the principal author of the document. He wrote over a third of the Federalist Papers, the most influential commentary on the Constitution. The first president to have served in the United States Congress, and was responsible for the first ten amendments to the Constitution and thus is also known as the "Father of the Bill of Rights". As a political theorist, Madison's most distinctive belief was that the new republic needed checks and balances to protect individual rights from the tyranny of the majority.
I think his credibility speaks for itself. In Federalist #41 Madison explained the very concept so many of our non-representatives have misconceptions about (my translations in Blue as always, and I have edited out some of his commentary , rest assured I do this for brevity and clarity)
Some, …, have grounded a very fierce attack against the Constitution,... It has been urged ..., that the power "to...provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States," amounts to an unlimited commission to exercise every power which may be alleged to be necessary for the common defense or general welfare.
No stronger proof could be given of the distress under which these writers labor for objections, than their stooping to such a misconstruction. (people who make this argument are grasping at straws, and are ridiculous)
Had no other enumeration or definition of the powers of the Congress been found in the Constitution, than the general expressions just cited, the authors of the objection might have had some color for it; (if this was the only language granting congress power, and if we hadn’t spent the time enumerating powers in the constitution, these objections might have some merit)
though it would have been difficult to find a reason for so awkward a form of describing an authority to legislate in all possible cases. (even if the above were true, what a strange way to grant unlimited authority to congress)
A power to destroy the freedom of the press, the trial by jury, or even to regulate the course of descents, or the forms of conveyances, must be very singularly expressed by the terms "to raise money for the general welfare." (if this interpretation was followed then the words "to raise money for the general welfare." would allow congress to take away all the other rights we just listed)
But what color can the objection have, when a specification of the objects alluded to by these general terms immediately follows, and is not even separated by a longer pause than a semicolon? (read the rest of the sentence, the part after the semicolon, when we explain what we meant)
If the different parts of the same instrument ought to be so expounded, as to give meaning to every part which will bear it, shall one part of the same sentence be excluded altogether from a share in the meaning; and shall the more doubtful and indefinite terms be retained in their full extent, and the clear and precise expressions be denied any signification whatsoever? (do we have to spell it out line by line and repeat ourselves over and over to keep you from keeping half of what we said and disregarding the rest? Why listen to the general terms and ignore the specific ones that follow which we included for clarification?)
For what purpose could the enumeration of particular powers be inserted, if these and all others were meant to be included in the preceding general power? (why list other powers if that first general sentence gave the congress unlimited authority?)
Nothing is more natural nor common than first to use a general phrase, and then to explain and qualify it by a recital of particulars. (“Make me a sandwich, put ham and cheese between two slices of bread.” See what he means?)
But the idea of an enumeration of particulars which neither explain nor qualify the general meaning, and can have no other effect than to confound and mislead, is an absurdity, which, as we are reduced to the dilemma of charging either on the authors of the objection or on the authors of the Constitution, we must take the liberty of supposing, had not its origin with the latter. (The specifically enumerated powers are there to explain and qualify the general meaning. It is absurd to think we put them there to confuse what we meant. If there is any misleading as to what we meant either it was by the authors, or by the people making the objections, and it was not the authors)
…How difficult it is for error to escape its own condemnation! (you hang yourself with your own rope!)
-KOOK
