He may not, but the SCOTUS did and they supported the Individual Mandate. So You The Person has no right, at this point, to complain. The legal process is done and the Individual Mandate is Constitutional. Sorry.
C'mon, man. Did you even read it?
The SCOTUS majority ruled that the individual mandate IS MOST CERTAINLY NOT CONSTITUTIONAL under the commerce clause.
The moonbeam minority wing of the court, of course ruled that the government does have the authority to force people to purchase a product, a position they would doubtfully take if it were a product conservatives favor. However, pertaining to the individual mandate via commerce clause, the court ruled that Congress' authority to regulate commerce does not extend to "compelling commerce".
national federation of independent business v. sebelius said:Construing the Commerce Clause to permit Congress to regulate individuals precisely because they are doing nothing would open a new and potentially vast domain to congressional authority. Con- gress already possesses expansive power to regulate what people do. Upholding the Affordable Care Act under the Commerce Clause would give Congress the same license to regulate what people do not do. The Framers knew the difference between doing something and doing nothing. They gave Congress the power to regulate commerce, not to compel it. Ignoring that distinction would undermine the prin- ciple that the Federal Government is a government of limited and enumerated powers. The individual mandate thus cannot be sus- tained under Congress’s power to “regulate Commerce.”
Robert's opinion made it clear that he thought it was the duty of the court to find a way to make the law constitutional, and that the court could only do that if it's called a tax. But before the ruling the Republicans charged that the AFA raised taxes. All the moonbeams scoffed. The POTUS, Reid, Pelosi, Bacchus, one of the chief architects of it, the press, pundits, all the moonies argued vehemently that it's not a tax.
But since the only way to make it constitutional was to call it a tax, it's now expedient for everyone to call it a tax. So, nod-nod-wink-wink, the individual mandate isn't an individual mandate, it's a tax.
And thus, with the exception of the medicaid extortion provision of AFA being struck down as unconstitutional, the AFA is constitutional because the SCOTUS says it is, rather than because it actually is.