” … the power of Congress to authorize expenditure of public moneys for public purposes is not limited by the direct grants of legislative power found in the Constitution.

…

“[T]he phrase “to provide for the general welfare” qualifies the power “to lay and collect taxes.” The view that the clause grants power to provide for the general welfare, independently of the taxing power, has never been authoritatively accepted. . . . The true construction undoubtedly is that the only thing granted is the power to tax for the purpose of providing funds for payment of the nation’s debts and making provision for the general welfare.”

This is explained in my book “The LAWFUL Remedy to Tyranny: How You Lost Your Rights, and How You Can Get Them Back.” Read a summary at http://www.NaturalLawRemedy.com.

I oppose the use of violence

then you can refute my misinterpretation. Otherwise it stands.

And who the hell said I have a law degree? Gross.

"To lay taxes to provide for the general welfare of the United States, that is to say, "to lay taxes for the purpose of providing for the general welfare." For the laying of taxes is the power, and the general welfare the purpose for which the power is to be exercised. They are not to lay taxes ad libitum for any purpose they please; but only to pay the debts or provide for the welfare of the Union. In like manner, they are not to do anything they please to provide for the general welfare, but only to lay taxes for that purpose. To consider the latter phrase, not as describing the purpose of the first, but as giving a distinct and independent power to do any act they please, which might be for the good of the Union, would render all the preceding and subsequent enumerations of power completely useless."

I take this as meaning that a tax is only a tax if it is based on a legitimate power of congress. Therefore, it must be established if ObamaCare is a legitimate exercise of congressional power before it can be determined if the individual mandate is indeed a tax, making that determination rather pointless.

My view of the issue at hand is that the question being asked of the courts is entirely the wrong one if we were to consider the meaning of the constitution in the context of what the ratifying generation understood it to mean. I understand that an entirely different tradition of jurisprudence has been built up to take the place of the spirit and it might be necessary to play within the confines of that system that is stacked in the favor of Federal overreaching, but I wouldn't expect much success with that system.