Has Line-Item Vetoing Reached the Supreme Court?

Has line-item vetoing reached the Supreme Court? I don't know that that is what happened in today's ruling on the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, but I'm sitting here wondering.

So, the individual mandate (the part of Obamacare that requires people to have insurance) was ruled constitutional, but ruled so under the taxing powers of the Constitution, not under the Commerce Clause.

Chief Justice John Roberts, in writing the majority opinion, said, "The individual mandate cannot be upheld as an exercise of Congress's power under the Commerce Clause. That Clause authorizes Congress to regulate interstate commerce, not to order individuals to engage in it."

So, the individual mandate was struck down?

Not at all, says a Deseret News online article titled, "Supreme Court upholds individual mandate in President Obama's health care overhaul." Says the article, "In the moments following release of the decision, Twitter was buzzing with contrary reports of what happened, some major outlets reporting incorrectly that the individual mandate was overturned."

Roberts joined four other justices in ruling that the Affordable Care Act does allow the individual mandate to stand, but Roberts asserted that it was because the Constitution gives the federal government the right to tax that the law stands, not because of the Commerce Clause.

The other four justices wrote a separate opinion, a "concurring opinion," penned by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, saying that in addition to agreeing the individual mandate has license under the taxing provision of the Constitution, they also would have upheld the it under the Commerce Clause.

Would we say the four line-item vetoed the majority opinion? They agreed the individual mandate stands due to the taxation powers, but they line-item vetoed Roberts' contention that the Commerce Clause does not authorize the individual mandate.

Here's how I got wondering about it. From whitehouse12.com, written by someone calling himself I.M Citizen, I read that while the ruling allows the individual mandate to stand under the tax law, it struck it down under the Commerce Clause. Writes I.M. Citizen:

"Chief Justice Roberts actually ruled the mandate, relative to the commerce clause, was unconstitutional. . . . This is critical. His ruling means Congress can’t compel American citizens to purchase anything. Ever. The notion is now officially and forever, unconstitutional. As it should be."

Is I.M. Citizen simply one of the many who incorrectly reported? What of the dissenting opinions? Did they concur with Roberts that the Commerce Clause does not extend authority for the individual mandate? Because, if they did, that makes five votes saying the Commerce Clause gives no such permission.

So, did Roberts side with four justices in deciding that the individual mandate stands under the taxing rights of the federal government, but side with the other four justices in determining that the Commerce Clause only extends to regulating existing business, not creating new business?

'Tis late at night. The mystery must remain, for now.