[Alberta's Child]

This is a critical move because it opens another legal front against ObamaCare.

Contrary to popular belief, the landmark U.S. Supreme Court decision on ObamaCare (the infamous John Roberts opinion) did not uphold the law in its entirety. It only addressed the constitutionality of the individual mandate.

In the same decision and the same Roberts opinion, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that ObamaCare was not constitutional under the interstate commerce clause of the U.S. Constitution.

This was an important part of the decision that never got much scrutiny because nobody was really making a big deal about it at the time, but it has huge implications for a state like Idaho that wants to allow insurers to sell insurance plans that are not compliant with the requirements of the Affordable Care Act.

[Vigilanteman]

Idaho is a state awash in common sense. This country would do well to let them decide every presidential election.

[Still Thinking]

In the same decision and the same Roberts opinion, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that ObamaCare was not constitutional under the interstate commerce clause of the U.S. Constitution.

Wait...if "ObamaCare", i.e. the whole kit and kaboodle, is unconstitutional, then how does it make any difference, and why are we still saddled with the bulk of it, that they found some specific provisions not to violate the Constitution??