Under all the usual rules of interpretation, in short, the Government should lose this case. But normal rules of interpretation seem always to yield to the overriding principle of the present Court: The Affordable Care Act must be saved.

This is an execution, not surgery. Where does that come from, that you must find the method of execution that causes the least pain?

Day by day, case by case, the Supreme Court is busy designing a Constitution for a country I do not recognize.

It is difficult to maintain the illusion that we are interpreting a Constitution, rather than inventing one.

That's the argument of flexibility and it goes something like this: The Constitution is over 200 years old and societies change. It has to change with society, like a living organism, or it will become brittle and break. But you would have to be an idiot to believe that. The Constitution is not a living organism, it is a legal document. It says something and doesn't say other things.