Arktinkerer is apparently making the arguable philosophical point that the rulings of the Supreme Court only reflect the opinion of the Supreme Court, as opposed to being "the law" in some ætheral sense. Earlier in this very thread I implicitly took the opposite position in this debate when I suggested that articles disagreeing with the rulings of the Court did not change the actual state of "the law".
However, some scholars -- including some justices -- would agree with Arktinkerer's position. Thomas J often specially concurs or dissents to allege that the precedents of the Court are wrong and should be ignored. For example, in
Preston v. Ferrer (2008), 552 US 346, the question before the Court was whether the
Federal Arbitration Act superseded state law that specified the forum for arbitration. Previous decisions of the Court had already ruled that the Act applied to proceedings in state court. Rather than grapple with the question before the Court, Thomas J dissented on the basis on that the Act categorically does not apply in state court proceedings, contrary to the law as determined by the Court.
You might say there is a difference between Thomas J penning a dissent in an actual court case, compared to Arktinkerer posting to this forum, but legally there really isn't.
Preston was decided on an 8-1 vote and the dissent of Thomas J has the same legal effect as Arktinkerer's posts here (i.e. none at all).
Regarding the 10th amendment to the US Constitution, it only restates the principle that was codified in the text of the main body of the Constitution; it is not the source of any legal rule itself. The Supreme Court has repeatedly stated that the 10th amendment "added nothing to the [US Constitution] as originally ratified and has no limited and special operation":
United States v. Sprague (1931), 282 US 716, 733. The correct question is whether a federal statute is within the powers of Congress; asking instead whether it "violates the 10th amendment" is an unnecessarily indirect way of phrasing the question and implies (incorrectly) that the 10th amendment contains rights of its own, which it does not. The 11th amendment is often similarly misunderstood, but that's a discussion for another post.
As for the federalism concerns relative to healthcare, there are ways to handle healthcare in a federation other than the approach adopted by the legislation commonly referred to as the "Affordable Care Act". Here's an example of a different approach:
The
Canada Health Act,
RSC 1985, c C-6, provides that each province will receive a "cash contribution" if the healthcare system in the province satisfies certain minimum requirements. If a province wants to receive the cash contribution, it can then use whatever approach it wants to bring its healthcare system up to the standards dictated in the federal Act. The Act does not require provinces to do anything (unless they want to receive the cash contribution). The Act also does not impose any requirements on individuals whatsoever.
The actual health care regulation is not a matter of federal law in Canada. For example, Alberta's health care system is authorised by the
Alberta Health Care Insurance Act,
RSA 2000, c A-20, an Act of the Legislature of Alberta. This approach is actually remarkably decentralised compared to the US approach. The
Canada Health Act is only 7 printed pages long and sets out the requirements for the cash contribution in a very broad and open-ended set of terms. The details of health care regulation are instead found in provincial statutes.
It sounds to me like Arktinkerer is basically saying that he prefers the Canadian system of health care regulation to the US one.