The LA Times says that Solicitor General Donald B. Verrilli, Jr., won the Affordable Care Act case with his alternative, second, argument. “The first argument was that the law was valid under Congress’ power to regulate interstate commerce. His fallback argument rested on Congress’s power to impose taxes.”
Curiously, the ABA Journal says that taxing was Verrilli’s third argument: “The first was that the law could be enacted under the commerce clause, and the second was that it was authorized under the necessary and proper clause.” But “Verrilli cited the taxing power in the administration’s third backup argument . . .”
Who knew that counting legal arguments was so complicated?