(CNN) -- Today's heart-wrenching, baby-splitting Supreme Court decision illegitimately rewrote the Affordable Care Act in order to save it. It's certainly gratifying that a majority on the court rejected the government's dangerous assertion of power to require people to engage in economic activity in order to then regulate that activity. That vindicates everything that we who have been leading the constitutional challenge have been saying: The government cannot regulate inactivity. It cannot, as Chief Justice John Roberts put it in summarizing his opinion from the bench, regulate mere existence. Justifying the individual mandate under the taxing power of Congress, however, in no way rehabilitates the government's constitutional excesses. As Justice Anthony Kennedy said in summarizing his four-justice dissent, "Structure means liberty." If Congress can avoid the Constitution's structural limits simply by "taxing" anything it doesn't like, its power is no more limited than it would be had it done so under the Commerce Clause.
@highlight
Ilya Shapiro: High Court rejected notion that mandate justified under Commerce Clause
@highlight
But it justified it instead under taxation power; this is constitutional excess, he says
@highlight
He says in doing this, the court illegitimately rewrote the health reform act to save it
@highlight
Shapiro: Justices should be applying the Constitution. To fix this, ball is now in voters' court
As @placeholder wrote in dissent, while purporting to apply judicial modesty or restraint, the court's rewriting of the law is anything but restrained or modest.
In any event, the ball now shifts to another court, that of the people -- the ultimate sovereigns who, in ratifying the @placeholder, delegated certain limited powers to the federal government.