>>And both were upheld giving Obama his victory from the tax angle.<<
My understanding has been that the Commerce Clause application was NOT upheld, that Roberts used Taxation to get around his own strict understanding of the Commerce Clause, and that it remains, even for him, a means to constrain federal power. Clarify that for me if I am wrong.
In any event, one of Levin’s proposed Article V amendments has the purpose of strengthening and strictly enforcing the Commerce Clause.
Roberts ruled for the Commerce Clause arguments advanced by Cuccinelli. But Roberts also gave into Obama’s tax arguments. So it was a ‘mixed’ decision. But since Obamacare was allowed to survive as a Tax, then in reality and practicality, Obama won.
The Commerce Clause is still abused, greatly so. Mark Levin and others, especially Constitutional scholar and professor Randy Barnett, have proposed thoroughly researched and well-crafted amendments to address the abuses of Commerce Clause rulings.
But in the case of Obamacare, Commerce Clause counter-arguments from Obama’s lawyers were not advanced; not adopted. But as said it was moot because Obama was allowed to proceed with his law under tax authorities.