Healthcare could not be a more appropriate cause for "promoting the general welfare" of the US. With that sentence in the preamble, the constitution recognizes that the federal government may be best suited to provide for some elements of general welfare, and therefore delegates the power to the federal government. There is no 10th amendment violation.As far as requiring insurance, remember this: We can not turn a person away from a hospital for coverage. Therefore, if someone with no money and no insurance seeks care, it can not be refused. The cost of that treatment is borne by the hospital, and passed on in the form of higher prices for those with insurance. Nobody has given permission for this taking of property, therefore, our end result is theft from everyone else who pays for medical treatment. One could argue, then, that we should turn away poor people for treatment. This is a horrible and cruel view. As long as treatment can not be refused, and as long as said treatment should not be stolen from hospitals and those that pay for treatment, the balance between one's right to make their own decisions about insurance and the right of those paying for treatment to be free from theft is tipped in the favor of requiring insurance. You do not have a right to rely on others to pay for your inevitable care if you have the ability to do so yourself. If you do not, then help should be available. Emoluments Clause:In December of 2009, prior to becoming Secretary of State, the salary was reduced to pre-vote levels by congress. As there is now no raise in pay, there is no violation of the emolument clause. But then again, you probably knew that. If you didn't, I would check on your news sources to see why that was conveniently left out.Any more "violations" of the constitution you'd care to share?