Legal Question in Constitutional Law in California

Ah, an excellent question. I have not read either of the opinions that found the law unconstitutional, nor the two that have found it constutional, but I think the answer to the part of the debate raised in your question is pretty clear. There is a long line of cases that hold that operating a motor vehicle on public streets and highways is a privilege, not a right. Therefore the state is free to impose any restrictions, requirements or revenue collections on that right that are resonably related to any public purpose (which is Constitutional Law Talk for "they can do whatever they want"). The Obama/Pelosi Care law is quite different, because it imposes a requirement that people buy health insurance simply as a condition of being here. But for citizens of the U.S., living here is a right, not a privilege. So there is a big Constitutional difference between requiring you to pay a private insurance company in order to exercise the privilege of owning and operating a motor vehicle, versus requiring you to pay a private insurance company in order to exercise your right to exist as a resident citizen of the U.S.