At least because of this ruling.

It's the Civil Rights Act. It's the prohibitions on child labor, regulation of workplace safety, environmental regulations - the SCOTUS could strike them all.

These people cannot be trusted further than they can be thrown.

It is a tax now so it is a huge victory for Dems.

I don't see the either/or there. The Commerce clause still upholds the Civil Rights Act.

the commerce smack down could be a problem.

not sure of the current laws, but it's clear to me we need more competition in the health insurance
industry-- thus is the ruling today going to stop people from crossing state lines to consider
insurance in other states?

such as paying claims and such.

the Commerce Clause comes back into play.

One would think that this would make it's removal a matter of procedure by congress, basically putting it to a vote and just saying "we are not going to implement this tax" end of discussion.

with distributors that are likely doing business across state lines. So there is a business (commerce) relationship already. But, to require someone to enter into a commerce relationship, as would be the case with uninsured individuals is quite an extension from that. I can see where (legally) this (tax) might be a more appropriate justification for the mandate and I don't think (at least in my own mind) that the civil rights decision would be logically in question based on commerce clause.

But, I could never claim to be a constitutional lawyer...

and not across state lines, so the Commerce Clause would be tougher to apply (though the Commerce Clause now reaches to the ends of the earth, and even in state activities can affect commerce outside the state).

means it only takes 51 votes to rescind it, throwing it out the window.

Single payer is also out of the realm of possibilities now. This is law. Anything else would have to start from square one.

The law mandates everyone have health insurance. The ability to afford it or not is irrelevant as it's a tax.

I don't think that this is the win we think it is. Roberts is way too sneaky.

Reconciliation?

A House majority and a willing POTUS are also required. As would be the case with any law.

With a simple majority. Senate levies taxes and the House controls the purse strings.

Presidential signature not needed.

Congress can annul a tax by itself?

Any law requires the signature of the president.

The entire ACA could also be repealed by Congress in exactly the same way - with a simple majority. So could the Civil Rights Act or the Voting Rights Act, or any other law. But again, that would require both chambers and the president's signature.

Roberts upholding a tax for health care hands us the mechanism for single payer.

We open up Medicare Part E like Kucinich called for, paid for by a tax (i.e. premiums).

That is the nature of corporate dictatorship.

that goal would be nothing to worry about. Some wing nuts would overturn Marbury v. Madison, not going to happen. It's been 80 years or more since the wing nuts lost the Commerce Clause battle. It now extends far beyond what they would have wanted.

They could never negate it (Constituional Amendment to remove it? Not happening in this millennium).

Those of us who believe in self governmenet now have to consider a Constitutional amendment to negate Citizens United. The difficult challenge of changing a bad ruling lies with us.

I do not like this part of thet ruling.

So I don't think existing commerce clause precedents will be affected.

Of social security and Medicare.

He used precedent.

The Court has upheld a variety of legislation, including the Civil Rights Act, on Commerce Clause grounds. This is a narrow decision which does not affect other legislation.

Bake, Esq.

have a look at this http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/post/broccoli-tyranny-lives/2012/06/28/gJQAwxRQ9V_blog.html

From teh linked article