Here is the 10th Amendment:
"“The powers not _______ delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people”.

Marshall rightly inferred that the absence of the specificity by this omission was deference to the necessary and proper clause and common sense.

In you mucking up the Constitution for your political ends you always fail to mention another phrase in Act. I Sec. 8 "common defense and "general welfare".

Any honest reading of US history knows the Constitution was to create a strong(er) federal government and is vastly differnet from the Declaration of Independence. Stop re-writing our history!

This clearly means only what it says: either the power to be legislated must be enumerated just prior in the text, or relevant to a power stated elsewhere in the Constitution.

Thomas, however, in his dissent, nailed it as follows:

"If the majority is to be taken seriously, the Federal Government may now regulate quilting bees, clothes drives, and potluck suppers throughout the 50 States. This makes a mockery of Madison's assurance to the people of New York that the "powers delegated" to the Federal Government are "few and defined", while those of the States are "numerous and indefinite."

It could go either way with health care. It's possible the court is concerned about the revival of interest in the original meaning of the Constitution (Tea Parties, e.g.). This could push it to decide, for political reasons, that it can invalidate ObamaCare because it forces people to buy something. This would be seen as throwing a bone to the moderates and conservatives in order to quell the anger.