I think it is, but it depends on how you look at it. Since the law is whatever Roberts says it is, you can argue it is the the law of the land. But Roberts had to resort to preposterous "reasoning" to "justify" the ruling.
Maybe I should have stated more clearly that I view Obama's lawlessness as a larger phenomenon than just obamacare.
AS I recall it was passed by both Houses (after much trouble for Dems) and signed by Obama
After Franken stole a senate seat (with the help of rogue judges) to make 60 votes. But I was not claiming that the the manner in which it went through the votes in both houses and was signed (although sleazy) was illegal. I won't keep beating the dead horse about how Roberts rewrote the law to do what he wanted, but also I think the law was unconstitutional in handing over so much of the actual mechanism to HHS etc. But maybe today the idea of putting limits on what congress can do to us is anachronistic. As Obama said, is the Constitution a "charter of negative liberties," just some old moldy pages to be ignored?
I believe that the plan to have half the states refuse to participate will not succeed unless congress and the POTUS are on their side, because the states which would not participate still would have to pay for the states that do.
If our sole hope is Romney and Co vs Dems then things look pretty grim because few believe that they are up to the task; and so more and more Dreams of that Genie in a bottle fantasies will be thrown forward to us.
I think you and I are both horrified, but not really surprised, by the lack of concern among the voters about the growth of government and the loss of individual liberty. And I agree with you that, among his other problems, Romney is so far unable or unwilling to convince them to oppose obamacare's huge tax hike.
I saw another poll on cable where 45% polled said they didn't even know that there was a SCOTUS decision on Obama-care,
Marx's view of liberty, which Dems are using now, is that LIBERTY is being freed of our basic needs (as determined by) by the state, that you are supposed to vote for more free stuff. Remember that the Demographics of this country have changed dramatically the past decade or so due to immigration, and with it these views.
RE :”I believe that the plan to have half the states refuse to participate will not succeed unless congress and the POTUS are on their side, because the states which would not participate still would have to pay for the states that do.”
This is where Romney and a Republican congress could come in handy. They repeal just the funding, then all the states opt out. They need to be put to the test after 4 years of tough talk.