Regulating Economic Inactivity

In earlier posts, I discussed the problematic individual mandate with Obamacare. In a recent column, George Will illustrates the logical extension of that mandate if it's ruled constitutional.  He poses these questions to Elena Kagan for her Supreme Court confirmation:

So, instead answer this harmless hypothetical: If Congress decides interstate commerce is substantially affected by the costs of obesity, may Congress require obese people to purchase participation in programs such as Weight Watchers? If not, why not?

• The government having decided that Chrysler's survival is an urgent national necessity, could it decide Cash for Clunkers is too indirect a subsidy and instead mandate that people buy Chrysler products?

• If Congress concludes that ignorance has a substantial impact on interstate commerce, can it constitutionally require students to do three hours of homework nightly? If not, why not?

• Can you name a human endeavor that Congress cannot regulate on the pretense that the endeavor affects interstate commerce? If courts reflexively defer to that congressional pretense, in what sense do we have limited government?

 As stated earlier, the individual mandate changes the social contract between the individual and the government. If the government can regulate economic inactivity, there's nothing they can't regulate.