Roberts decision ignores a major violation of the Constitution

There were many procedural obstacles to getting Obamacare passed (by one vote). But Democrat leaders had a full bag of tricks to overcome the opposition. The amount of legislative skulduggery needed to pass the thing was staggering, and few voters knew about it. Fewer still remember it today.

For example, some noticed that Oblamocare was passed by the Senate first, then by the House. Thus it would seem to have been a senate bill. But if that's true, there's a problem, because the Supreme Court has now ruled that the crucial individual mandate was a tax (since it wasn't permitted by the much-abused commerce clause).

The Constitution explicitly says all revenue measures must originate in the House. So if Obozocare was indeed passed by the senate first, wouldn't that be a clear violation of the Constitution?

Ah, Grasshopper, you fail to understand the depths of legislative trickery under the Democrats (and probably the Repubs too; anyone have any examples?) Because the Democrat senate majority leader, Harry Reid, took a revenue bill that had originated in and passed the House, and been sent to the senate for consideration, and "amended" it. The amendment was...let's say, unusual--as it removed the entire content of the bill.

Then after a decent interval--presumably so the rubes in flyover country wouldn't detect the trick--the Dems amended the now-empty shell of a bill a second time. This amendment added what would become 2700 pages of Obozocare.

Hellofa trick, eh?

Now, it's my understanding that for a long time it was a fundamental principle of Constitutional law that the courts wouldn't let a president or congress do something indirectly that the Constitution barred them from doing directly.

Example: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." So if a congress far removed from the Founders--say, 2012 or so--got 'cute' and passed a law saying "You can belong to any religion you like; but if you're not a member of the Church of Dear Leader you must pay a tax of $1000 per year," the courts (at least prior to the Roberts court) would strike this as unconstitutional without hesitation.

If you can't see why this principle is absolutely vital, fundamental, to the proper functioning of the Constitution then you need to be a Democrat (if you aren't already).

Obviously Congress is free to amend bills, but Reid's legislative trick of taking a revenue bill already passed by the House, removing everything from it except the number of the bill and then inserting totally different content on an unrelated topic, accomplished by artifice and indirect action something the Constitution explicitly prohibits.

By rights, this alone should have disposed of the constitutionality of Obamacare.

Every attorney who values the Constitution should be hammering this question. Because if the courts feel free to ignore such a fundamental principle then the Constitution ultimately offers no protection from an out-of-control president or congress.

Practically speaking, judges willing to trash the Constitution for invitations to the right parties, an arrogant president and a power-hungry congress have combined to make the Constitution no longer the highest law of this land.