Conversely, most people that I've talked to agree that the NSA listening is very much not constitutional as per the 4th amendment. Even if you think it's constitutional, you have to do a lot of weasel wording about the definition of 'search and seizure'.
Personally, I disagree with the Wickard v. Filburn ruling that gave the power to the government to control what a farmer grows on his own land to feed to his own cattle under the "interstate commerce" power. The Constitution was distorted beyond any reasonable reading of the English language during the FDR administration and we never recovered.
The Republic is dead, FDR killed it. It's just taken us awhile to get used to living in a totalitarian state. Well, here we are.
No, it didn't hinge on that point. The court split a number of different ways on different points in the case, but the rationale to which a majority signed on to for finding the individual mandate constitutional was the Taxing Clause, not the Commerce Clause.
There was an apparent 5-4 majority against finding for it under the Commerce Clause (the four conservative dissenters who would have struck it down plus Roberts), though there was no single opinion to that effect joined by any majority.
The reason that ObamaCare survived wasn't because of the Interstate Commerce loophole. It was because SCOTUS determined that it's a tax, and thus came in through the power of Congress to levy taxes.
What's next? A selected group of 'food providers' that you have to pay because the government decides that they provide a better diet than people would choose from the free market?
If you disagree with the law on principle, that's fine, it's certainly not a perfect solution.
But those are political objections. Based on how the interstate commerce clause has been interpreted for a wide variety of issues, it's not unconstitutional (for most working definitions of constitutional). That's why Pelosi laughed and moved on to the next question.
I'm not saying you're wrong, just that your point isn't really about what is or is not constitutional, but rather that interpretation has rendered the constitution meaningless so anything is constitutional now. Perhaps this is why Pelosi laughed at the idea of something being unconstitutional.
Except that that's clearly not the case, as plenty of things remain prohibit by the Constitution, as we see the Supreme Court finding as recently as today [1].
Sure, the interstate commerce power is generally interpreted in a fairly broad manner today, but that is very different than "anything is constitutional now".
[1] http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/12pdf/11-9540_8m58.pdf
