The logic is often far-fetched - how does medical marijuana affect interstate commerce? - and some conservatives would like judges to start throwing out federal laws wholesale on commerce clause grounds. The court once again said no thanks.

You can't solve a problem as complex as inequality in one legal clause.

The Supreme Court has never ruled that Congress can use the Commerce Clause to require individuals to engage in an activity they have chosen to avoid. Yet that is precisely what Obamacare does: It forces Americans without health insurance to purchase coverage. Such a requirement is unprecedented and unconstitutional.

The Establishment Clause prohibits government from making adherence to a religion relevant in any way to a person's standing in the political community.

The attack on ObamaCare was that Congress does not have the power under the Commerce Clause to force a private citizen into a private contractual relationship. If such a thing is permitted to stand the anti-ObamaCare forces argue there will be no limit to Congress's power in the future.

It wouldn't be fair to say that conservatives cherish property the way liberals cherish equality. But it would be fair to say that the takings clause is the conservatives' recipe for judicial activism just as they say liberals have misused the equal protection clause.

Believe in love. Believe in magic. Hell believe in Santa Clause. Believe in others. Believe in yourself. Believe in your dreams. If you don't who will?