The efforts seem to have generated the inconsistencies being pressed here.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026316188

Dear SCOTUS: Health reforms intended for all under constitution

LTE in today's Tampa Bay Times.....

I was astounded when reading this editorial on the issue of King vs. Burwell. The sentence quoted by the Times to be the basis for the suit indicated that federal subsidies are provided to low-income people who buy private insurance on an exchange "established by the state".

The dictionary gives the first political definition of "state" as "a politically unified people occupying a definite territory; nation." It is further defined as the "body politic as organized for civil rule and government (distinguished from church)." Additionally, the definition includes "the operations or activities of a central civil government."

The document in question was written as a federal law. It is not a law passed by one or more individual states. The United States is a constitutional union of states, not a loose confederacy. A law of the national government is a law in all the states. The state referenced in the law is the state in the national sense of the word. This difference was thoroughly and thoughtfully worked out by the Founding Fathers. Any decision to the contrary could destroy the very basis of our CONSTITUTION.

Mxxx Axx Hxxxxx
Dunnellon, FL

to uphold the law as is.

He said Roberts and Kennedy are going to do the right thing and he explained why.

Kennedy expressed serious constitutional concerns if the plaintiffs win based on states rights and Roberts was far too silent throughout the day for someone who would be CHANGING his mind as he would have to do.

Let's hope so