Here is the whole absurd health care argument over the last three days boiled down to one simple example, which shows that law is either constitutional or the entire tax system is unconstitutional.
Al and Bob both have identical incomes and live in identical tract homes on opposite sides of the same street. Al and Bob live their lives completely identically except for the following scenarios:
1. Al chooses to buy health insurance. Al pays less to the IRS than Bob who pays more to the IRS. Bob pays more to the IRS because he chooses not to buy health insurance and instead spends the same money to improve his comic book collection.
Justice Scalia finds this "extraordinary" and Kennedy thinks this completely changes the relationship of citizens to the government. Presumably this will be found unconstitutional.
2. Al chooses to take care of his need for shelter by purchasing his house with a mortgage and for which he pays a total of $3,000 per month. Al pays less to the IRS than Bob because Bob chooses to lease his identical house for $3,000 and therefore has no mortgage interest.
No problems here, even though by definition owning vs. leasing immovable real property cannot possibly be interstate commerce.
3. Al chooses to pay $10,000 to his church so it can provide him religious services (in a tax-free building). Al pays less to the IRS than Bob who is an atheist and chooses to spend the same $10,000 on his comic book collection.
Still no constitutional problems here, even though the money is going to establish religion.
In any sort of rational world, the lawsuit against the health care act would be laughed out of court -- or all of these actions by the government to encourage different spending choices would be unconstitutional.