See: Attorney General Pam Bondi and the 25 Other States Challenging the Federal Health Care Law File Reply Brief on Anti-Injunction Act
“The Anti-Injunction Act does not bar the Court from considering the challenge to the individual mandate because the Act imposes a 'penalty' on those who fail to get coverage, not a 'tax',” stated Attorney General Pam Bondi. “The federal government severely undermines its claim that Congress can impose the mandate under its taxation powers.”
There is but one question which Pam Bondi an other State Attorney Generals need to have the Court establish regarding the constitutionality of Obamacare. When have the American People debated granting power to Congress to enter the States and tax for, spend on and regulate their health care needs and choices, and then, as required under Article V of our Constitution, gave their consent to such power by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof? Seems to me a majority of the States have officially rejected such power being granted by filing suite in our federal district courts.
What is so difficult to understand about the un-constitutionality of Obamacare other than those who pretend the Constitution may mean whatever they wish it to mean, and without reference to the documented intentions and beliefs under which it was adopted?
Health care by consent of the governed (Article 5) our amendment process --- tyranny by a majority vote in Congress or a Supreme Court's progressive majority vote