[philman_36]

How about hearing it from Randy Barnett himself...
@ We lost on health care. But the Constitution won.Lawmakers argued that this mandate was justified by the Constitution’s commerce and “necessary and proper” clauses. Had we not contested this power grab, Congress’s regulatory powers would have been rendered limitless.
They are not. On that point, we prevailed completely. Indeed, the case has put us ahead of where we were before Obamacare. The Supreme Court has definitively ruled that the commerce, necessary and proper clause, and spending power have limits; that the mandate to purchase private health insurance, as well as the threat to withhold Medicaid funding unless states agree to expand their coverage, exceeded these limits; and the court will enforce these limits.

Wouldn't this man know above all others if it was dicta or a ruling?

Are people already being led this early on to come to a false conclusion about dicta vs ruling?

[philman_36]

@ We lost on health care. But the Constitution won.In perhaps the most important passage of his opinion, Roberts insisted that “without deciding the Commerce Clause question, I would find no basis to adopt such a saving construction” of the penalty. This makes his analysis of the commerce clause a binding holding for future courts to follow.

Somebody been lying.

[NoLibZone]

Thank you.

I have the article from here:

http://www.nola.com/newsflash/index.ssf/story/we-lost-on-health-care-but-the-constitution-won/ee811e8a5fa1df58b828037401aa9c5f

Please keep ‘em coming!