Convenient Inconsistency

"But does it make any sense?"
--Dr Stephen Falken (WarGames)

When reading discourse surrounding Chief Justice Roberts' healthcare ruling, one frequently encounters words like 'twisted,' 'tormented,' and 'tortured' to describe his arguments for justifying the individual mandate as a tax. I've described it similarly.

Most bothersome to me about Roberts' opinion is its inconsistency. When arguing the individual mandate as unconstitutional under the Commerce and Necessary and Proper clauses (see Roberts 15-30), Roberts constantly refers to the framers' intent to limit federal government power. Because the individual mandate forces individuals into unwanted commercial activity, Roberts concludes that the mandate is unconstitutional.

Then Roberts commences his tax argument (see Roberts 31-44). Not only is the argument disjointed and logically 'jumpy,' but it is void of the original intent basis of the previous section. Instead of considering the framers' intent to limit federal government power via taxes, Roberts attempts arguments that imply that federal taxing power is essentially unlimited. What he construes to be unconstitutional via the Commerce clause argument is construed as constitutional via Congress's taxing power.

Thus, we have a ruling that implies that Congress can lawfully command any behavior that it pleases, whether or not the subject of that behavior is a power granted to the Congress by the Constitution, and it may punish noncompliance with that command, as long as the punishment is called a 'tax.'

How this is consistent with the framers' original intent of limiting government power escapes me. Roberts recognizes the limited government notion in one part of his argument but ignores it in another part.

The hallmark of strong arguments is consistency in underlying reason. Weak arguments, on the other hand, conveniently pick and choose.

Roberts chose convenience.