I probably didn’t do a very good job of explaining things. Let me try again and see if I do a better job.
Your interpretation of the 7-2 decision is correct. That is because the Justice Department argued that it was a “tax” (which it was, of course) which they claimed found a place under the general welfare clause.
That said, there is NO precedent, nor any avenue in the Constitution for ordering citizens to purchase an insurance product (or any other product, for that matter!). An this is what the mandate before us is. In fact, the CBO has noted at least once in the past (Hillarycare) that such a law would not pass muster. Evidently, the courts have recognized in the past that forcing citizens to purchase something gives rise to citizens being PREVENTED from buying things as well.
Mark Levin’s handle is “ holdonnow “ Give him a yell or call his show.
He’s already laying the bricks for Landmark Legal Foundation to take a whack at this, should it pass.
:)
Article III, Section 2. The House included it in HB 3200. I give it a near certainty in any obummercare bill.
If I am wrong, the living and breathing types on Scotus will happily look under a penumbra or emanation to find Congressional power to inflict another tax for “insurance” purposes as they did for Social Security. Moonbat case law these past 70 years has superseded the plain language of our Constitution and if needed, what's a little more moonbattery to promote social justice?
When was the last time Scotus shot down major social legislation?
We live in a Judicial Tyranny, not a republic.