Question

Several states challenge the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (2010) mandate to purchase health insurance. These challenges were meet by a strong government response. In 2012, the US Supreme Court ruled in a 5 to 4 decision that the mandate to purchase was constitutional. From the second e-Activity review the option in the case and explain the Court's rationale for upholding the mandate.

Answer 1

It was upheld by the court that the ACA on the basis that the individual mandate penalty is a tax which is for the purpose of the Consitution's Taxing and Spending Clause and is a much valid exercise of Congressional authority.
But the ACA does not come under Congress' power to regulate commerce. The Commerce Clause which allows Congress to regulate existing commercial activity and not to compel individuals to take part in commerce.

A tax can’t be challenged until after it’s in effect in terms of technicality. By this reasoning Obamacare’s “repercussions” for people who turn down to buy health insurance couldn’t be challenged until after it’s in effect till 2014. As the Court made it clear that the penalty is a penalty and not a tax – in the healthcare law, thus deciding that the Anti-Injunction Act wasn’t applicable while they could go ahead to address the issues.
The rationale to upheld the act forms that the final issue is the level of scrutiny the court applies. So simply Commerce Clause cases are generally considered on a “rational review” basis: the court was going to upheld a law if a rational basis were in existence for concluding that the regulated activities, in aggregate, substantially affect interstate commerce as in the case Gonzales v. Raich, 2005; Heart of Atlanta Motel v. United States, 1964 . According to this standard, the individual mandate would with a great certainty be upheld if there was reasonable support for Congress’s judgment that failure to establish the individual mandate would greatly affect the interstate health care insurance market.