[Talisker]

I’m impressed by the explanation and I didn’t find it too confusing, merely too wordy. Justice Roberts called it a tax and a tax can only arise in the House of Representatives which this tax did NOT. The Dems then began calling it a tariff. A tariff is a tax on imported goods which has nothing to do with this law.

Thanks for the vote of confidence. Yes, it's "wordy" on purpose for two reasons. First is that it stuffs a lot of information into a relatively small space, and it's just hard to know what to include and what not. Second is that it was obvious when I wrote it that it was going to take flak, so I opted for explaining a little more, rather than a little less, to support the arguments and interpretations. It's really not an "article" - it really IS a legal analysis, because it has to be to make it's point. And legal analysis, by and large, are not light reading.

Also, there's one more important thing - it is based, in its entirety, on what Roberts wrote in his ruling. Roberts invoked these issues, terms and associations - I didn't. I just showed what he was directing everyone's attention to. He's a lawyer and a judge - those people live in a world of very careful definitions and terms and usages and phrases and contexts. That's what they DO. And the fact is that they, by "doing" that, set up the legal framework for our country.

So if Americans want to understand the law, they have to go where the law IS, not where they want it to be, and they have to study it as it IS, not as they want it to be. So that's what I did.

[sargon]

I believe I read this identical analysis around the time of the decision. I don't find it all that controversial. While we may never know what motivated Roberts to vindicate the ACA, I do believe that the notion that, regarding its enforcement, the Act indeed doesn't technically apply to the majority of the People, and generally for the reasons purported in the analysis. And that's probably the only reason it could be even theoretically Constitutional.

Why do I believe this?

Well, one reason would be that in order to believe anything else, it would basically necessitate espousing some sort of conspiratorial scenario in which Justice Roberts willingly engaged in Treason (which is exactly what it would be. Let's not mince words.)

Either that , or he's just a f-----g moron.

It seems the possibilities are limited:

• Are we suddenly supposed to believe Justice Roberts is an utter fool regarding the Constitution?
• Are we instead supposed to believe that Roberts saved 0bama's legislation because of some Treasonous conspiracy to defraud the People and destroy the Republic?
• Or, is the more reasonable explanation something along the lines analyses such as those presented in the article? The law doesn't apply to you and me.

At the very least, we can say that Roberts kicked the ball down the field, at least until the enforcement of the ACA individual mandate becomes an issue in an of itself. If it ends up being enforced Tyrannically (and it will) the ACA will be tested again in the courts.

In fact, I expect the Roberts decision to be reversed some day if the enforcement is attempted along the Tyrannical lines we can all easily imagine.