I listened to the debate between law professor Neil Siegel and historian Tom Woods on NPR (referenced in the article above). As usual, the law professor is clueless as to history and relies on Supreme Court precedent to support ObamaCare. His big argument is that ObamaCare is (now!) a tax and there is no limit on Congressional authority to tax.

(Siegel also displays his complete ignorance of the issues at hand when he argues that it's important to note that "I don't hear anyone arguing that the states couldn't do this. If the states can do this, why can't the feds?" Talk about missing the entire point of the debate! Even the moderator, presumably not a lawyer, recognizes the sheer stupidity of this comment in the context presented.)

Also, typically, Tom Woods got less air time compared to Siegel and had to spend far too much of his limited time dealing with red herrings such as racism, slavery and the Civil War. Woods has to interrupt to get a word in edgewise on these issues. It's tough to listen to this debate because you know how unfairly it's being conducted and you can't do anything about it.

Repeatedly, I see that lawyers have no clue on these Constitutional issues and non-lawyers completely dominate the logical end of the discussion.