Yes, I'm afraid there's a touch of snark to the title. Perhaps it would have been more polite if I said, "Unfortunately for your argument, what you 'think' has no relevance to the subject actually under discussion."
Let me explain. It has been pointed out that there are certain popular (or less so, depending on who you ask) programs that some Tea Partiers hold to be unconstitutional.
What do some bloggers have to say in refutation of this? Their reply to the idea that program X is unconstitutional?
They disagree because they think that government has a role to play in caring for the poor and elderly.
Now, remember: what is in question is whether or not program X is constitutional. What government's proper role is, is not in question. It is, in fact, irrelevant to the question of whether or not program X is constitutional. You might think program X is the perfect fulfillment of the perfect government's role in caring for people, but that has nothing to do with what the Constitution actually says. If you want the Constitution to permit program X and it doesn't, your opinion on government's proper role won't change that.