http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/metro/docs/Hudson_ruling.pdf
The Significant Error in Judge Hudson’s Opinion ?http://volokh.com/
There's no "significant error", except in Orin Kerr's logic. If you read that post's comments, reader "GMUSL '07 Alum" provides an excellent response to Orin's silly statement.
There is no significant error in the logic Hudson applied to the “necessary and proper” clause. The author at volokh misses the boat. Chief Justice Marshall didn’t say that Congress could use unconstitutional means to achieve an end. In fact, he said that the means must themselves be according to the letter and spirit of the Constitution.
But to the author’s point ... that the individual mandate is a means to a Constitutional end. What end? Requiring the purchase of insurance seems like an end rather than a means.