A little more than 400 years ago a king of England , James I , was informed by one of his judges , Edward Coke , that while the king was under no man , he was under God and the law . This was one of the earliest and most powerful suggestions that our legal system ( borrowed from the English ) had , as its core principle , that there must be some restraint on arbitrary power . Ours is supposed to be a government , as John Adams wrote in the Massachusetts Constitution of 1780 , of laws and not of men . What the health care ruling means to you . In what will go down as one of the most important Supreme Court decisions of the 21st century , a majority of the justices have affirmed that most noble and important of Anglo-American legal maxims . But the court 's opinion , in preserving the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act , under Congress ' taxing power , still gives a virtually unlimited sway to the power of the federal government . The court 's opinion is a long one , and will be carefully parsed by legal scholars , but the bottom line is not difficult to discern . Chief Justice John Roberts has , whether he makes it clear in his opinion or not , chosen to leave the determination of the scope of Congress ' powers to Congress itself , and to the American people , who place their representatives in Congress . How the Supreme Court voted , what they wrote . The argument against the Affordable Care Act was that the individual mandate , by requiring virtually all adult Americans to buy health insurance or pay a penalty , could not be justified under the commerce power , because instead of regulating commerce , the act was an attempt to compel participation in commerce . The chief justice and Justices Antonin Scalia , Anthony Kennedy , Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito all now concede that that argument was correct , and that there must be some limits to the power of the federal government when it seeks to regulate interstate commerce . This was the clear holding of prior Supreme Court cases as well . But with the chief justice 's turning to the taxing power to justify the individual mandate , what his opinion takes away under the Commerce Clause , is , in effect , given back . This is particularly disappointing , because the authors of the Affordable Care Act , and its defenders , such as President Barack Obama , repeatedly assured the American people that it was a measure that would reduce costs , not increase them , and that the act was not an attempt to raise taxes . Breaking down the court 's decision . A tax measure is less politically palatable than an `` individual mandate , '' and had the penalty provisions of the individual mandate been frankly acknowledged to be a tax , it would have been more difficult to pass the act , perhaps even impossible , given the closeness of the margin by which it was enacted . Some court watchers repeatedly said that the chief justice did not want to render a decision which , by finding the Affordable Care Act unconstitutional , would plunge the court once again into the political thicket it encountered in 2000 with Bush v. Gore . What Roberts has done in this case seems to prove those observers correct . A health care victory that 's only a start . The court has paid some lip service to the principle that ours is a government of laws , not of men , and that the Constitution exists to reign in arbitrary power . There are four Justices -- Scalia , Kennedy , Thomas and Alito -- who seem sincere in that belief . I wish I could say that I believe Roberts is as well . What the court has failed to do in this case must be corrected by the American people themselves . It is now for Congress , perhaps , to reconsider this unwise act , which unduly expands the reach of the central government , and unwisely restricts the liberty of the American people . Ruling plays into campaign narrative for both sides . The decision is also a reminder of the sad truth that our constitutional liberties hang by too slender a thread . There is now a new and potent issue to be considered in the upcoming election , and that is , which candidate will have an opportunity to shift the precarious balance of the justices on the court . It is unconscionable for 5-4 majorities to alter the meaning of the Constitution , and to shift the basis Congress has given for legislation . One can only hope that after this November the likelihood of this happening again will be less .
The U.S. Supreme Court has upheld the health care law in 5-4 ruling . Stephen B. Presser : The ruling unduly expands the reach of the federal government . He says chief justice 's turning to the taxing power to justify the law is disappointing . Presser : It is now up to Congress to reconsider this unwise act .