"CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS concluded in Part III–B that the individual mandate must be construed as imposing a tax on those who do not have health insurance, if such a construction is reasonable...
But, for the reasons explained, the Commerce Clause does not give Congress that power. It is therefore necessary to turn to the Government’s alternative argument: that the mandate may be upheld as within Congress’s power to "lay and collect Taxes." Art. I, §8, cl. 1."Now, I don't know what the government said in its oral arguments before the court, but (in a rather striking parallel) this sounds more and more like a child trying to find reasons dad should give him $10. If you won't do it because of X, then do it because of Y (whine whine whine).
"In pressing its taxing power argument, the Government asks the Court to view the mandate as imposing a tax on those who do not buy that product. Because "every reasonable construction must be resorted to, in order to save a statute from unconstitutionality," Hooper v. California."
Hooper v. California was a SCOTUS case decided way back in 1895 and oddly involved a California insurance broker buying insurance for a California customer from a company not licensed in California. The customer was charged with a crime because he bought out of state insurance, which was illegal under CA law. The defendant argued he had a Constitutional right to buy the product from out of state, where CA did not have jurisdiction - interstate commerce. In their search for something to avoid unconstitutionality, SCOTUS hit upon the idea that the broker was an agent not only for the insurance company, but also for the customer, and so the customer's transaction was internal to CA. Thus, he was subject to California law, which was constitutional after all. Wham! Bam! Thank you Ma'am! Pay $5 or spend the night in jail. The broker never considered himself to be an agent of the customer (or at least never maintained it in court), and the idea totally came from SCOTUS.
Now, recall my points from paragraph 2 above, that the law was publicly and overtly DEFINED to be administered under the Commerce Clause? And, that the law was publicly and overtly argued NOT to be a tax? That is what sets this case apart from Hooper! The INTENTION of the lawmakers and the president was clearly and publicly stated, and that should have been the basis for SCOTUS's evaluation of it.
SCOTUS had no legal grounds (in my opinion) to freely deviate from the stated intent of the Obamacare Act. Yet, they did. The court went out of its way to find a way to get around the bumbling of Congress and the President to declare it legal in spite of them.
And We the People lost more ground to the Socialist-in-Chief.