It is important, I think, to understand the substance of the Commerce Clause ruling and the taxing-power issue.

As for the Commerce Clause, the chief justice writes of precedent: “Given its expansive scope, it is no surprise that Congress has employed the commerce power in a wide variety of ways to address the pressing needs of the time. But Congress has never attempted to rely on that power to compel individuals not engaged in commerce to purchase an unwanted product.” He continues:

The individual mandate, however, does not regulate existing commercial activity. It instead compels individuals to become active in commerce by purchasing a product, on the ground that their failure to do so affects interstate commerce. Construing the Commerce Clause to permit Congress to regulate individuals precisely because they are doing nothing would open a new and potentially vast domain to congressional authority. Every day individuals do not do an infinite number of things. In some cases they decide not to do something; in others they simply fail to do it. Allowing Congress to justify federal regulation by pointing to the effect of inaction on commerce would bring countless decisions an individual could potentially make within the scope of federal regulation, and — under the Government’s theory — empower Congress to make those decisions for him.

That is lock, stock and barrel the argument that conservatives have been making and liberals mocked. Roberts reminds us: “Everyone will likely participate in the markets for food, clothing, transportation, shelter, or energy; that does not authorize Congress to direct them to purchase particular products in those or other markets today. The Commerce Clause is not a general license to regulate an individual from cradle to grave, simply because he will predictably engage in particular transactions. Any police power to regulate individuals as such, as opposed to their activities, remains vested in the States.”

Roberts also gave the back of the hand to liberals’ argument that the ”necessary and proper clause” does something more than the Commerce Clause. (“Even if the individual mandate is ‘necessary’ to the Act’s insurance reforms, such an expansion of federal power is not a ‘proper’ means for making those reforms effective.”)

In short, we are a government of enumerated powers, and the Commerce Clause is not a free pass to do whatever Congress pleases.

On the taxing power, Roberts put great weight on what the Obama lawyers said, rather than what was written in the law. He wrote: “It is of course true that the Act describes the payment as a ‘penalty,’ not a ‘tax.’ ” It cited the fact that the IRS is going to collect the payment as evidence it is a “tax.”

The dissenters, to put it mildly, had a field day on the tax. The dissent argues:

That §5000A imposes not a simple tax but a mandate to which a penalty is attached is demonstrated by the fact that some are exempt from the tax who are not exempt from the mandate — a distinction that would make no sense if the mandate were not a mandate. Section 5000A(d) exempts three classes of people from the definition of “applicable individual” subject to the minimum coverage requirement: Those with religious objections or who participate in a “health care sharing ministry,” §5000A(d)(2); those who are “not lawfully present” in the United States, §5000A(d)(3); and those who are incarcerated, §5000A(d)(4). Section 5000A(e) then creates a separate set of exemptions, excusing from liability for the penalty certain individuals who are subject to the minimum coverage requirement: Those who cannot afford coverage, §5000A(e)(1); who earn too little income to require filing a tax return, §5000A(e)(2); who are members of an Indian tribe, §5000A(e)(3); who experience only short gaps in coverage, §5000A(e)(4); and who, in the judgment of the Secretary of Health and Human Services, “have suffered a hardship with respect to the capability to obtain coverage,” §5000A(e)(5). If §5000A were a tax, these two classes of exemption would make no sense; there being no requirement, all the exemptions would attach to the penalty (renamed tax) alone.

You get the idea. The dissenters explain the trap of converting the “this is not a tax” statue into a “this is a tax” ruling:

Judicial tax-writing is particularly troubling. Taxes have never been popular, see, e.g., Stamp Act of 1765, and in part for that reason, the Constitution requires tax increases to originate in the House of Representatives. See Art. I, §7, cl. 1. That is to say, they must originate in the legislative body most accountable to the people, where legislators must weigh the need for the tax against the terrible price they might pay at their next election, which is never more than two years off. The Federalist No. 58 “defend[ed] the decision to give the origination power to the House on the ground that the Chamber that is more accountable to the people should have the primary role in raising revenue.” United States v. Munoz-Flores, 495 U. S. 385, 395 (1990). We have no doubt that Congress knew precisely what it was doing when it rejected an earlier version of this legislation that imposed a tax instead of a requirement-with-penalty. See Affordable Health Care for America Act, H. R. 3962, 111th Cong., 1st Sess., §501 (2009); America’s Healthy Future Act of 2009, S. 1796, 111th Cong., 1st Sess., §1301. Imposing a tax through judicial legislation inverts the constitutional scheme, and places the power to tax in the branch of government least accountable to the citizenry.

In that regard, while trying to constrain the federal government (ruling on limits of the Commerce Clause), the chief justice suggests a giant transfer of power from Congress to the courts. It’s a curious position for him, given his insistence that courts defer ( “It’s not a tax” is pretty clear) to the plain meaning of laws and the Constitution.

By the way, since it is a tax and the president has prosecutorial discretion, he can tell the IRS not to collect it, and the mandate goes away. Just saying.

For more on the Supreme Court ruling:

Topic A: What does the decision mean?

Jonathan Bernstein: Obamacare lives, but much fighting lies ahead

Stephen Stromberg: Court saves U.S. from policy pileup

Erik Wemple: CNN, Fox blow their first reaction to the health-care ruling

Kathleen Parker: Winning the day with deceit

Ed Rogers: Obama won ugly, and only temporarily

Carter Eskew: Supreme Court decision gives new life to President Obama

Full text of the Supreme Court ruling