It already did that - Wickard v. Filburn The farmer in that case was prohibited from growing food for himself because it would have "a substantial effect" upon interstate commerce. W v. F also needs to be overturned - and this case may be the mechanism for that. So I pray.
Exactly, therefore my question to Roberts - how is being forced by the government to purchase a necessity any less intrusive than being forced by the government to purchase any non necessity?
IOW, how can Wickard (and Raich) stand if the court rules against Abomicare? Further, how can Social Security remain constitutional?