As we await a decision from the U.S. Supreme Court on Obamacare, one thing is for sure:
Legal experts were too dismissive of the legal challenge to the constitutionality of the Democrats' plan to require free people to buy something they did not want to purchase.
Immediately following passage of the law, attorneys general from 13 states filed a lawsuit challenging its constitutionality.
Legal experts at the time said the attorneys general did not have a prayer.
"It would be surprising if the (Supreme Court) says Congress can't regulate people who are participating in the $1 trillion health-care market," David Freeman Engstrom, a law professor at Stanford, told McClatchy Newspapers.
"The lawsuit probably doesn't have legs both as a matter of precedent and as a matter of common sense."
He was more optimistic than Sanford Levinson, a law professor at the University of Texas, who thought it odd that anyone would dare challenge the constitutionality of the mandate that just about every adult in America must buy health insurance or pay a hefty fine.
"As a technical matter, it's been set up as a tax," Levinson said. "The argument about constitutionality is, if not frivolous, close to it.
"You'd have to imagine that the five conservative Republicans on the Supreme Court will be willing to invalidate the most important piece of social legislation in 50 years on the basis of a highly tendentious and controversial reading of the Constitution."
Another law professor, Lawrence Friedman of the New England School of Law in Boston, said states are subservient to the federal government.
States can sue, "but I can't imagine a scenario in which a judge would enjoin the implementation of the federal health-care bill," Friedman said.
"Federal law is supreme. There's really no room for doubt that federal law controls."
These experts reject the fundamental principle that the Constitution sets strict limits not on the powers of the individual American or even the states, but upon the federal government itself.