The Solicitor General don't even know what the law says!
The government's lawyers, recognizing this fundamental constitutional reality, have tried to rewrite the law so that it can withstand judicial scrutiny. They have claimed that the individual mandate is a tax, despite common sense, judicial precedent, and numerous statements to the contrary by the law's sponsors and President Obama.
Commerce Clause authorizes Congress to regulate economic activity "... among the several states". And what if you never leave your State? But failure to participate in the insurance market is the antithesis of "activity", no? OK then, it's a tax. Congress can tax! No, wait a minute, it's not a tax. But we won't refund your taxes if you don't pay a tax... oh wait a minute...
They have also argued that ObamaCare does not actually impose a mandate on inactive citizens, but rather regulates how individuals will pay for their health care. As Solicitor General Neal Katyal recently put it, the mandate is "about failure to pay, not failure to buy."
Excuse me sir, but no, the law requires you buy insurance.
Even if you're Bill Gates, or Warren Buffet. Or John Galt. Have you not read it?
This is plainly wrong. The law requires that everyone have health insurance - without regard to whether or how they buy or pay for medical services.
Who cares about the Constitution?
If ObamaCare is to be upheld, then the Supreme Court will have to abandon these precedents, along with the plain meaning of the Constitution. It will also have to concede that our federal system is in fact not one of divided authority between federal and state governments, but one in which the states merely act as Washington's administrative enforcers. There is every reason to believe the court would never entertain such a notion.
Let's hope so.Why ObamaCare Is Losing in the Courts