The Individual Mandate and Raich

Interesting position on why the Raich case may not form a solid precedent supporting the Individual Mandate.
Basically, as I like to say, it is a "breath tax".  Are you breathing?  Ok, then, you owe the tax.  Nothing is produced, no goods or services change hands.  It is a tax on economic inactivity.

Well, I suppose since breathing emits CO2, maybe that should be regulated.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
I. The Court’s Definition of “Economic Activity.”
The Raich Court’s definition of economic activity is extremely broad, even ridiculously so. For example, it gives Congress the power to regulate your decision to eat dinner at home, since that decision entails the “consumption” of commodities such as food. Expansive as this definition may be, the mere status of being uninsured doesn’t qualify. Choosing not to purchase health insurance involves neither production, nor distribution, nor consumption of commodities. Indeed, an individual who chooses not to purchase insurance has chosen not to consume or distribute the commodity in question. And, obviously, he or she is also not “producing” any commodity by refusing to purchase insurance. By contrast, the Raich defendants were engaged in “economic activity” since they were both producing and consuming marijuana.

II. The Broader Regulatory Scheme Rule.
This rule too is very broad in the way it allows Congress to regulate even “noneconomic” activity so long as there is even a remote connection to some sort of regulation of commerce. However, the power outlined by the court applies only to the regulation of “activity.” The Court itself repeatedly uses the term “activity” to describe the object of regulation. It does not cover regulation of inactivity or the refusal to engage in economic transactions. Angel Raich and Diane Monsen had not been inactive or merely refused to engage in some transaction. To the contrary, they were actively involved in the production and consumption of homegrown medical marijuana. The Court’s logic could be extended to cover regulation of inactivity. But Raich itself doesn’t do this.

http://volokh.com/2010/10/05/gonzales-v-raich-and-the-individual-mandate/