Congress cannot make you buy something but can tax you for not buying it?

On the one hand I think Roberts is screwed in the head and a lunatic.  "it seems odd to have a result whereby Congress cannot make you buy something but can tax you for not buying it."

On the other he may be brilliant and declared the mandate for what it is - a tax.  He knows a tax must still comply with other requirements of the Constitution, therefore the tax will be challenged as unconstitutional in various forms in the future.  The decision also gels the right to unite and fight for a cause to repeal - but this purports that Roberts made a decision for a "conservative cause" - unlikely; however the liberal media is spinning his essay a save the court's legitimacy...nice spin.

"So, in other words he's saying that Congress may have the authority to penalize organizations that refuse to comply with its mandates, but any of those penalties will be struck down if they violate other requirements in the Constitution, such as the First Amendment," which provides for freedom of religion.

http://www.onenewsnow.com/Legal/Default.aspx?id=1623586&utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter

Roberts has a valid argument, but only if the legislation was written utilizing the power of taxation as the means by which to compel purchase of insurance, which it wasn't.  In any case, is the nation is now taxing inactivity?  When has an American incurred a tax for what he didn't do?  In an exploration of his inner Chávez, Obama should try to pass a law taxing people who don't vote for him. 
http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/06/still_a_bfd_obama_loses.html#ixzz1zJCj3h7S

How did this happen?  Well, as even Fox News and CNN now know, Chief Justice John Roberts put a new gloss on Congress’s taxing power just as he rediscovered the meaning of the Commerce, Necessary and Proper, and Spending Clauses.  In 13 cryptic pages, Roberts fashioned a not-quite-silk purse out of a sow’s ear, salvaging—to continue the porcine metaphor—Obamacare’s bacon from the constitutional flames.

Quite beyond the direct/indirect/excise/whatever tax issue, it seems odd to have a result whereby Congress cannot make you buy something but can tax you for not buying it.  As Roberts himself wrote, “If it is troubling to interpret the Commerce Clause as authorizing Congress to regulate those who abstain from commerce, perhaps it should be similarly troubling to permit Congress to impose a tax for not doing something.”

Remember, we’re not talking tax credits for installing solar panels—an incentive—as an alternative to a solar-panel mandate, but rather tax debits for not installing them.  And that’s after you suspend disbelief and hypothesize that Congress had actually structured its “minimum coverage provision” as a tax rather than regulation-plus-penalty.

Nevertheless we’re left with a definitive ruling that Congress can’t make you buy broccoli—Roberts was clear on that, explicitly rejecting the government’s pooh-poohing of that infamous hypothetical—but can tax you for not buying broccoli.  That’s a constitutional distinction without a practical difference.

By the end of the day:

The important point is that the Constitution doesn't apply to Americans, it doesn't apply to citizens, it doesn't even apply to "people." It applies to the federal government. The body of the Constitution tells the federal government what it is allowed to do, and in some places it explains how to do it (election procedures and such). The Bill of Rights tells the federal government what it is not allowed to do . . .

http://www.lewrockwell.com/browne/browne27.html

John Roberts has failed miserably in this regard.  By taxing me for not buying something he has broken Ammendment 1 right off the bat.  Not buying something is a form of freedom of speech.

Obama has failed miserably on the first two points economy and jobs.   Hey it's year 2027 and it is still Bush's fault.  A 56% majority of Americans do not support this legislation and in fact want it repealed.  Does anyone think that the more people understand what it will cost them and their families, support will increase?   This alone will be enough to push the 10 million votes Obama won over McCain by, back to Romney. 
http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/06/still_a_bfd_obama_loses.html#ixzz1zJLKRdjx 

It is also the biggest tax increase in history and estimates keep getting bigger because it is not fully in play yet - Graphic: 21 TAX INCREASES...