"...Chief Justice Roberts opinion' for the court -- re-articulates in the most elegant fashion the importance of a dual-sovereignty system, its connection to individual liberty, the proposition that the federal government cannot exercise general police power.
I have been saying from the very beginning this is not about health care. This is not about individual mandate. It's about constitutional architecture. The fact that this decision does it with vigor I have not seen since the Lopez decision, where it was only a concurring opinion by Justice Kennedy, is remarkable.
And even on the taxing power, Professor Tribe misses the point, with respect, that there are limiting factors that the chief justice hung his hat on, for example, the total size of a penalty. I think if a penalty was in the thousands of dollars, the decision may have come out differently.
But what's important in the long run again, to correct this mistaken impression which this administration has unfortunately propounded, that somehow the structural separation of powers issues are archaic, this is not important, only matters what was good for a matter and policy and politics." David Rivkin
I think Rivkin has the better of this argument. IMO the long term effects of this decision are severely limiting for the "interstate commerce" clause. This clause has been used for decades by consolidationists to expand the power of the federal government.
The additional limitation on the power of the federal government in the matter of Medicaid expansion was evidently bartered to Roberts by two of the liberal justice (breyer and Ginsburg) in return for his acquiesence in sustaining the general tenor of this law. How the BHO Administration plans to implement this insurance structure without Medicaid expansion in some states is a mystery.
I am of two minds in this matter. As I have said I favor public health care for the poor, but on the other hand the middle class is going to pay for that care under this law as it was designed. The money for subsidies will have to come from the general treasury of the United Statees. That means that tax paying citizens will pay for subsidies for those who do not pay taxes because of low incomes. Will the middle class benefit from the law on a net basis?
Europeans and Canadians cannot see why some Americans (including me) do not want to live in a consolidated state in which the central government of a country 3,000 miles wide with 300 million people can simply dictate what it likes as an ideology driven future. IMO Chief Justice Roberts struck a blow against that future and I applaud him. pl