These sentences from Roberts are like Marbury v. Madison: i.e., give the administration the immediate thing it wants but set the stage for a much greater victory down the road. “The Commerce Clause is not a general license to regulate an individual from cradle to grave, simply because he will predictably engage in particular transactions. Any police power to regulate individuals as such, as opposed to their activities, remains vested in the States.” "It is well established that if a statute has two possible meanings, one of which violates the Constitution, courts should adopt the meaning that does not do so." In other words, if the mandate is understood as a regulation of commerce, it's unconstitutional; if it's a tax, it's constitutional. This is a line in the sand.

Reply · Report Post