OK let's discuss constitutionality then. The SCOTUS does not make law, they simply evaluate law as to whether it conforms to the constitution, or not. It is NOT "judicial activism" to declare a law, or lower court ruling based on a law, as unconstitional. Justice Roberts wrote a "majority" opinion that NO other justice, even those voting for making the PPACA law stand (based on the commerce clause), would sign on to.
JUstice Roberts claimed that since IRS was involved, IN A MINOR WAY with the individual mandate, that it was not unconstitutional. A very bad legal decision, IMHO, as it ignores the REAL issue, which is the federal gov't requiring a citizen to purchase a PRIVATE good or service, that has NO basis on any federal power granted by the constitution AT ALL.
The federal power to tax INCOME (IRS) comes only from the 16th amendment, that simply allows INCOME from all sources to be taxed. IMHO, Roberts has, in fact, become an "activist" judge in allowing HOW INCOME WAS SPENT, rather that simply the income itself, to be subjected to taxation. Two citizens both making EXACTLY $50K in income (from any source) should not be taxed any more, or less, than the other, based on the 14th amendment requiring EQUAL protection under the law.
The nonsense of our 80,000+ pages of FIT law with the majority of that law addressing how income was spent with credits, deductions and exclusions based NOT on the source of the income, but how that income was LATER spent, is unconstitutional. The SCOTUS is far to lenient in giving even a slight INDIRECT relationship to a federally authorized power, to serve as a reason to say that a law is constitutional. Simply using the IRS as a collection agency does NOT make the PPACA fine/penalty LEGAL, as NOTHING in the constitution gives the federal gov't power to order a citizen to buy a private product or service, to reward them for doing so or to punish them for not doing so.
