romney has a point

romney's distinction between federal and state power to impose an individual mandate is not frivolous. there is a real legal distinction there. while the federal government is designed as a "limited government" and anything that congress passes has to be authorized by one of the enumerated powers in article I, section 8 of the constitution, state governments have a general police power to regulate anything they want (subject, of course, to any restrictions imposed by the state constitution, or any of the affirmative rights in the federal constitution).

so it is true that if the individual mandate in the affordable care act is ultimately found to be unconstitutional by the supreme court, that would not mean that the individual mandate in the massachusetts law would also be unconstitutional.

personally, i think the individual mandate in the ACA is constitutional under existing precedent (though i'm less certain how it will fare with the current supreme court). all i'm saying is that romney's much mocked federal/state distinction is not as silly as the general public may think. but i also think that because it does look silly, the fact that has has a winning legal argument won't necessarily translate to a winning political argument.