Chief Justice John Roberts upheld the Affordable Care Act as a tax rather than a stretching of the commerce clause. The Obama Administration and chief architects of the law, including Congressman Henry Waxman, wanted to turn the Commerce Claus into a frill of its constructive import. What value does a constitution have if it cannot outline enumerated, constricting powers to the federal government? The Constitution is a binding document, one which provides specific powers to Washington, while all other powers would devolve to the states and to the people (see Amendments Nine and Ten, which the vast majority of Congressman, Senators, and Presidents have contented themselves to ignore).
Matt Sissel, and Iowa small business owner and Iraq War veteran, has filed a petition challenging Obama-WaxmanCare because the taxing essence of the individual mandate, as construed by the Supreme Court, originated in the United States Senate. The Framers of the Constitution explicitly designated that all taxing laws would originate in the popular lower house:
All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills. (Article One, Section 7)
Currently, this legal challenge is under review from US District Judge Beryl Howell in Washington, D.C.
This challenge respects the ruling by the Supreme Court, yet also permits the Supreme Court to reverse itself on this issue, precisely because the previous appeals which had challenged the law focused on the extravagant reading of the Commerce Clause during the three days of oral arguments.
Conservative columnists George Will and Charles Krauthammer both recognized the long-term significance of Chief Justice Roberts decision to uphold Obama-WaxmanCare, which protected the Commerce Clause unequivocally from future encroachments into every transaction of American commerce.
Now he can justifiably rescind the entire law because of this blatant disregard by Congress to tax the people, when the original bill "to tax" originated in the wrong chamber.