Direct from SCOTUS:
A few positive points to be made about Chief Justice Roberts opinion:
Concerning the Individual Mandate:
Given its expansive scope, it is no surprise that Congress has employed the commerce power in a wide variety of ways to address the pressing needs of the time. But Congress has never attempted to rely on that power to compel individuals not engaged in commerce to purchase an unwanted product…. The language of the Constitution reflects the natural understanding that the power to regulate assumes there is already something to be regulated…. As expansive as our cases construing the scope of the commerce power have been, they all have one thing in common: They uniformly describe the power as reaching “activity….”The individual mandate, however, does not regulate existing commercial activity. It instead compels individuals to become active in commerce by purchasing a product, on the ground that their failure to do so affects interstate commerce. Construing the Commerce Clause to permit Congress to regulate individuals precisely because they are doing nothing would open a new and potentially vast domain to congressional authority…. Allowing Congress to justify federal regulation by pointing to the effect of inaction on commerce would bring countless decisions an individual could potentially make within the scope of federal regulation, and—under the Government’s theory—empower Congress to make those decisions for him…. The proposition that Congress may dictate the conduct of an individual today because of prophesied future activity finds no support in our precedent.”
Indeed it would and I agree with the Chief Justice on this issue specifically. Congress does NOT need to be involved in any citizen’s decision to buy anything or for that matter to not buy anything. The above reasoning is sound and leads me to believe that the Chief Justice isn’t totally insane for upholding this monstrosity of a law.
Chief Justice Roberts now has this to say concerning the government’s argument that Obamacare is constitutional due to the application of the “necessary and proper clause:”
The Government next contends that Congress has the power under the Necessary and Proper Clause to enact the individual mandate because the mandate is an “integral part of a comprehensive scheme of economic regulation…. As our jurisprudence under the Necessary and Proper Clause has developed, we have been very deferential to Congress’s determination that a regulation is “necessary.” We have thus upheld laws that are “‘convenient, or useful’ or ‘conducive’ to the authority’s ‘beneficial exercise.’” But we have also carried out our responsibility to declare unconstitutional those laws that undermine the structure of government established by the Constitution…. Applying these principles, the individual mandate cannot be sustained under the Necessary and Proper Clause as an essential component of the insurance reforms. Each of our prior cases upholding laws under that Clause involved exercises of authority derivative of, and in service to, a granted power. The individual mandate, by contrast, vests Congress with the extraordinary ability to create the necessary predicate to the exercise of an enumerated power. This is in no way an authority that is “narrow in scope….” Rather, such a conception of the Necessary and Proper Clause would work a substantial expansion of federal authority. No longer would Congress be limited to regulating under the Commerce Clause those who by some preexisting activity bring themselves within the sphere of federal regulation. Instead, Congress could reach beyond the natural limit of its authority and draw within its regulatory scope those who otherwise would be outside of it. Even if the individual mandate is “necessary” to the Act’s insurance reforms, such an expansion of federal power is not a “proper” means for making those reforms effective.
What the Chief Justice is saying here again echoes his previous comments concerning the “commerce clause.” That if the government had its way and the court had gone with both the commerce clause and the necessary and proper clause as justifications for the constitutionality of Obamacare that, in short, the federal government could literally come in and regulate any and all decisions an individual can make in their lifetime which sounds just like the Life of Julia. I don’t want government deciding any life issues for me nor do I desire the “Cradle to grave ” help”from the federal government.
Now the Chief Justice handles the governments last defense of the individual mandate:
Because the Commerce Clause does not support the individual mandate, it is necessary to turn to the Government’s second argument: that the mandate may be upheld as within Congress’s enumerated power to “lay and collect Taxes.”
There it is, the word we have all been waiting for…. Taxes. Remember this:
The President himself rejects the notion that the “fee” that must be paid to the government is not a tax. Now back to Chief Justice Roberts:
The Government does not claim that the taxing power allows Congress to issue such a command. Instead, the Government asks us to read the mandate not as ordering individuals to buy insurance, but rather as imposing a tax on those who do not buy that product.”
Who is the government again? The President, the Congress, The Supreme Court. Which branch was responsible for defending Obamacare in front of the Supreme Court. The answer is the Presidency and last I checked Barack Hussein Obama was President, his own solicitor general from the Department of Justice defended the law. The President says via interview that the individual mandate is not a tax, but his solicitor general argues that it is? Which is it Mr. President? Did you lie to us? I am guessing yes.
Cheif Justice Robert goes on to say that it is ok to tax a person based on behavior. I do not think it is correct to tax a citizen based on his behavior (owning or not owning a commodity). The question should be asked now, “What else can the federal government tax?”