So was Roberts in agreement that this type of Socialist healthcare scheme is actually in accordance with the Constitution or was he using this as a vehicle for other more important statements from the court?
There are many opinions floating around about this.
Peter Schiff had this to say:
On the other hand, some seem to think that this ruling by Roberts actually could be of some benefit, even though the onerous and Socialist legislation was left to stand.
Here’s what really occurred — payback. Yes, payback for Obama’s numerous, ill-advised and childish insults directed toward SCOTUS.That being said; What is to prevent a future Congress from mandating the purchase of anything - like an American (union made) automobile and then monetarily punishing any citizen who doesn’t comply with that mandate via a "tax"? Certainly, it is understood that with his ruling, Roberts thinks that such a law is constitutional.
Chief Justice Roberts actually ruled the mandate, relative to the commerce clause, was unconstitutional. That’s how the Democrats got Obama-care going in the first place. This is critical. His ruling means Congress can’t compel American citizens to purchase anything. Ever. The notion is now officially and forever, unconstitutional. As it should be.
Next, he stated that, because Congress doesn’t have the ability to mandate, it must, to fund Obama-care, rely on its power to tax. Therefore, the mechanism that funds Obama-care is a tax. This is also critical. Recall back during the initial Obama-care battles, the Democrats called it a penalty, Republicans called it a tax. Democrats consistently soft sold it as a penalty. It went to vote as a penalty. Obama declared endlessly, that it was not a tax, it was a penalty. But when the Democrats argued in front of the Supreme Court, they said ‘hey, a penalty or a tax, either way’. So, Roberts gave them a tax. It is now the official law of the land — beyond word-play and silly shenanigans. Obama-care is funded by tax dollars. Democrats now must defend a tax increase to justify the Obama-care law.
Finally, he struck down as unconstitutional, the Obama-care idea that the federal government can bully states into complying by yanking their existing medicaid funding. Liberals, through Obama-care, basically said to the states — ‘comply with Obama-care or we will stop existing funding.’ Roberts ruled that is a no-no. If a state takes the money, fine, the Feds can tell the state how to run a program, but if the state refuses money, the federal government can’t penalize the state by yanking other funding. Therefore, a state can decline to participate in Obama-care without penalty. This is obviously a serious problem. Are we going to have 10, 12, 25 states not participating in “national” health-care? Suddenly, it’s not national, is it?
Ultimately, Roberts supported states rights by limiting the federal government’s coercive abilities. He ruled that the government can not force the people to purchase products or services under the commerce clause and he forced liberals to have to come clean and admit that Obama-care is funded by tax increases.
That isn't cool at all.
Kill the Bill (on FaceBook) had this to say:
Obama and the Democrat's health care law was declared 'constitutional' by the Supreme Court today. This decision was based on the argument that the constitution grants Congress the right to levy taxes. Unless the law is repealed, in 2014 every American will be required to purchase health insurance- or pay a tax for not doing so. What this essentially means is that the federal government now has absolute authority to require Americans to do anything they want them to do. Don't join the military? Pay a tax. Watch too much tv? Pay a tax. Use birth control? Pay a tax. Gay? Pay a tax. Use your freedom to assemble in a public square? Pay a tax. Don't submit all of your personal information, including detailed financial records, health records etc? That's right- it is all possible now- there is no longer a limitation on the power of the federal government. The congress' authority to levy taxes now supersedes all individual rights 'guaranteed' by the bill of rights. Am I surprised? No, absolutely not. This is always the inevitable result of giving someone the legal authority to levy taxes. It is just one more sign that we do not live in the America we thought we did.My thoughts on this:
I thought it was a horrible ruling and Roberts should have sided with the other 4 Justices (Alito, Kennedy, Thomas and Scalia). He should have called it a mandate (because it is) and struck it down as being unconstitutional .. period.
But bottomline - this is a "tax" that can be repealed.
Anyone running in November with the message of repealing this onerous "tax", the biggest "tax" in US history, is most likely going to win their race given the anti-Obamacare sentiment nationwide. Chief Justice Roberts may have given Mitt Romney a campaign issue juggernaut (as if the economy wasn't already a campaign issue) on the basis that taxes are already too high and out of control. etc. etc.
also ... States can nullify this legislation... and we may very well see states do this. I will bet that money is flooding into the Tenth Amendment Center as you read this.
Lastly, it is of utmost importance that this ruling states that government mandates through the Commerce Clause, versus some sort of "tax" levied by Congress to make you do or not do something, are completely unconstitutional. That's actually a very good thing.
I can at least find solace in that.
I am hearing that 120 House members are already working to Repeal Obamacare and 26 states have started to work on Nullification of Obamacare.
FYI: Members of SCOTUS.