What wasn't challenged in this Obamacare suit was Federal usurpation of individual rights and responsibilities and the compulsion to particpate in ANY entitlement (Social Security, Medicare, Obamacare). Entitlements are all unconstituional and America would be better off without them as seen in places that have personal social security accounts and regulated free market medical and insurance markets.
Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli says he finds some positives in the Obamacare decision. I submit that ruling Obamacare a tax and hence permissible overlooks the purpose of the tax and Congress' right to legislate, fund or regulate at all beyond interstate issues as enumerate in the US Constitution. This was a word game worthy of Orwell. The Attorney General represents the State not we the people. I suggest we should look for another legal approach to challenge all Federal spending on entitlements.
In my speech at the US Capitol before oral arguements, I pointed to the source of the problem when Social Security passed. If we challenge entitlements the wrong way (for political purposes) rather than challenge the legal prededent...all we get is more government. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sXePsejkBYY
We must fight unconstitutional spending on every front. This includes looking to ourselves to challenge the usurpation and NOT rely upon the State who created the problem.
One Constitutional issue NOT part of the suit is that Tax Bills MUST originate in the House. This because they were instead debating the definition of a mandate verses a tax. The Senate version of Obamacare was deemed passed by the House but never voted on by the House. See how Pelosi and company argue that being unconstitutional in small things, they can then abuse it further. http://blog.heritage.org/2010/03/16/obamacare-slaughter-rule-is-wit...
Tea Party WDC
Visit Tea Party WDC at: http://teapartywdc.ning.com/?xg_source=msg_mes_network