The Supreme Court of the United States ruled that the Affordable Care Act is constitutional. There's nowhere to go after the Supreme Court.
No they did not. They ruled the ACA is not unconstitutional based on the arguments presented to them. The Supreme court does not deem anything constitutional, it determines if something violates the constitution and infers the constitutionality of it when it is not unconstitutional. Don't let the wording trip you up. When a court's opinion says something is constitutional, it is only in reference to the arguments of it not being constitutional that was presented to it.
The distinction there is that a law or aspects of a law found to not be unconstitutional under one set of arguments can be unconstitutional under another. For instance, segregation and the voter rights act have been in front of the supreme court several times and by the same mentality *deemed constitutional* but ultimately were found unconstitutional. The supreme court is only supposed to decide on the issue in front of it, not the entirety of a law or the policy within the law. Stop and Frisk has been deemed constitutional but the way New York is applying it, it will likely be determined unconstitutional. The DC gun ban is also an example of this where certain aspects of the law were perfectly legit and even if implemented and enforced differently would have remained so but according to the court but it was ultimately unconstitutional.
You're saying that they ruled it a "tax". That's not their ruling. If they ruled that way, that would imply they could make a law constitutional, but by ruling in such a way, the law is then unconstitutional. They cannot make up a paradox like that, that's not how the court works. Especially not the 9 justices of the Supreme Court.
Boy, you sound just like the dissenting opinion on the Obamacare case. You should actually pick up the opinions and read them- they are available from the Supreme court's website.
NATIONAL FEDERATION OF INDEPENDENT
BUSINESS v. SEBELIUS
It clearly states in the opinion around page 58 of the PDF,
The Affordable Care Act is constitutional in part and unconstitutional in part. The individual mandate cannot be upheld as an exercise of Congressâ(TM)s power under the Commerce Clause. That Clause authorizes Congress to regulate interstate commerce, not to order individuals to engage in it. In this case, however, it is reasonable to construe what Congress has done as increasing taxes on those who have a certain amount of income, but choose to go without health insurance. Such legislation is within Congressâ(TM)s power to tax.
In the dissenting opinion by SCALIA, KENNEDY, THOMAS, and ALITO, JJ, it clearly says
In answering that question we must, if âoefairly possible,â Crowell v. Benson, 285 U. S. 22, 62 (1932), construe the provision to be a tax rather than a mandate-with-penalty, since that would render it constitutional rather than un- constitutional (ut res magis valeat quam pereat). But we cannot rewrite the statute to be what it is not. âoeââoe[A]l- though this Court will often strain to construe legis- lation so as to save it against constitutional attack, it must not and will not carry this to the point of perverting the purpose of a statute . . .â or judicially rewriting it.â(TM)â Commodity Futures Trading Commâ(TM)n v. Schor, 478 U. S.
Congress passed it. The president signed it. It went before the Supreme Court and passed judicial review. It's the law, designed and built by democracy. The Republican party should respect that.
No future government will ever be constrained by a previous government unless it passed and ratifies an amendment of the US constitution and to that end, the limitation only exists insofar as the inability to further amend the Constitution. This entire congress made it law and the courts said it was constitutional argument neglects history and common sense. Clinton raised taxes, Bush lowered them. The supreme court upheld slavery and forcing the free states to return the escaped slaves to the owners in the slave state and that has gone away. At one time, drinking alcohol was constitutionally forbidden but now it isn't. There are plenty of other examples of when congress or the states have changed their minds. I'm not even going to get into the entire how this thing passed through tricks and legal maneuvers rather then how it is presented because the argument you made fails just on the premise that nothing can be changed due to one time support for a law.