The 1st amendment of the Constitution EXPLICITLY prohibits federal legislation in these areas

religion (establishment)

religion (free exercise)

press

speech

peaceable assembly

Article I Section 9 prohibits certain types of legislation related to:

immigration (no help here on Obamacare)

Habeas Corpus  (if your body is yours, how about decisions regarding care of body, including purchase of insurance?  Does the "Public Safety" require such mandates?)

Bill of Attainder, ex post facto laws  (Bill of attainder generally limited to denial of legal processes in formal justice processes.  Ex Post Facto - can person be required to buy insurance AFTER they get sick?  - that's a stretch)

No capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken.  (Such a mandate is NOT a tax on income, is it?  That being so, does the court-granted(?) pass on the 16th amendment apply.  I am TOLD that a direct tax (in context of Article I Section 9) is a tax directly collected from individuals by the federal government.  Depending on how the fees are collected, Obamacare might dodge that.  Still, it is not "in proportion to the census")

No Tax or Duty shall be laid on Articles exported from any State.  (Can health insurance services provided across state lines be considered "exported"?)

No Preference shall be given by any Regulation of Commerce or Revenue to the Ports of one State over those of another: nor shall Vessels bound to, or from, one State, be obliged to enter, clear, or pay Duties in another.  (Could the mandate of Obama care be shown similar enough to this to be struck down on that basis?)

No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, etc.  (no help here)

No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince or foreign State.  (Can "exemptions" already granted regarding this mandate be deemed a "title of nobility" - creation of lower class? - those required to pay vs. those exempted?)

Nothing leaps out at me from Section 10 that would be any help.  Does anything about this mandate require the states to do something prohibited in section 10?

SUMMARY: These are the 3 sections that contain the most explicit limitations of power.  There may be provisions (maybe in the 14th amendment?) that more subtly bear on this law.  It will be interesting to learn whether ANY of this is even mentioned in the proceedings and decisions.

Nothing in the 1st Amendment you cited prohibits healthcare legislation. You either read it wrong because you were not wearing your eyeglasses or didn't understand what you were reading.  The best thing you can do is challenge Obamacare in the court of law. Obamacare cannot be defeated by IGNORANCE.

I repeat, hate and ignorant comments like this cannot defeat Obama -- it only strengthen his chance of winning a second term.

What does "hate" have in common with citing phrases from the constitution that bear on a current political issue?

AND, you're right, the first amendment does not prohibit healthcare legislation.  If you will notice, I did not state that it did prohibit healthcare legislation.  The reason I mentioned the first amendment was to present a complete list of items for which the constitution explicitly blocked legislation.  If you paid attention to the summary, you'd know that.

So who wasn't wearing their eyeglasses?  And who doesn't understand what they're reading?

If I couldn't do any better than you just did, I'd post under "anonymous" too.

Concerning Obama's second term, Ron Paul is the only candidate offering anything subtantially different.  He's being strongly downplayed.  Even if the Republican nominee wins the election, current policies will be very little changed.

Even Ron Paul expects SCOTUS to uphold the law.  My comments show how weakly the constitution bears on this issue.

DC Treybil