2012 U.S. Presidential Election

[kurai]

It was not found unconstitutional? They said that you could not use it under the Commerce Clause, that in and of itself makes it unconstitutional. They did suggest it can be used as a tax, but the original use of it was unconstitutional.

this is not correct

ROBERTS, C. J., announced the judgment of the Court and delivered 
the opinion of the Court with respect to Parts I, II, and III–C, in which 
GINSBURG, BREYER, SOTOMAYOR, and KAGAN, JJ., joined; an opinion with
respect to Part IV, in which BREYER  and KAGAN, JJ., joined; and an 
opinion with respect to Parts III–A, III–B, and III–D. GINSBURG, J., 
filed an opinion concurring in part, concurring in the judgment in part,
and dissenting in part, in which SOTOMAYOR, J., joined, and in which
BREYER and KAGAN, JJ., joined as to Parts I, II, III, and IV.  SCALIA, 
KENNEDY, THOMAS, and ALITO, JJ., filed a dissenting opinion.  THOMAS, 
J., filed a dissenting opinion.

CHIEF  JUSTICE  ROBERTS concluded in Part  III–A that the indi-
vidual mandate is not a valid exercise of Congress’s power under the 
Commerce Clause and the Necessary and Proper Clause.  Pp. 16–30.

CHIEF  JUSTICE  ROBERTS  delivered the opinion of the Court with 
respect to Part III–C, concluding that the individual mandate may be
upheld as within Congress’s power under the Taxing Clause.  Pp. 33– 
44.

I, II, III-C is the majority opinion and it does not contain the assertion you imply; III-A is not part of the judgement

[Roy Karrde]

CHIEF  JUSTICE  ROBERTS  delivered the opinion of the Court with 
respect to Part III–C, concluding that the individual mandate may be
upheld as within Congress’s power under the Taxing Clause.  Pp. 33– 
44.

I, II, III-C is the majority opinion and it does not contain the assertion you imply; III-A is not part of the judgement

In which my point still stands, the finding of 3C is that the Individual Mandate "MAY BE UPHELD" is through the taxation clause, NOT through the Necessary and Proper Clause or the Commerce Clause.