This is not an analysis. The start is a description of why the federalism argument is relevant.

Your argument here is that while explaining why a legal argument is irrelevant you're not doing "analysis" of "the law"?

That's novel.

This is not the text of the section under dispute.

The Fourth Circuit disagrees:

"Eligibility for the premium tax credits is calculated according to 26 U.S.C. § 36B. This section defines the annual "premium assistance credit amount" as the sum of the monthly premium assistance amounts for "all coverage months of the taxpayer occurring during the taxable year." Id. § 36B(b)(1). A "coverage month" is one in which the taxpayer is enrolled in a health plan "through an Exchange established by the State under section 131"

"The plaintiffs contend that the statutory language calculating the amount of premium tax credits according to the cost of the insurance policy that the taxpayer "enrolled in through an Exchange established by the State under [§ 1311]" precludes the IRS's interpretation that the credits are also available on national Exchanges"

King v. Burwell, 759 F.3d 358 (2014)

You can be belligerent, or you can be wrong. I advise against both.

It the is appellants, not the government, who have relied on legislative history.

Nope. They rely on text. See above.

I'm beginning to worry you didn't read any of the decisions. Or the complaint. Or actually anything aside from stuff posted about it to reddit.

I do not do so. I am obviously aware that such an argument exists. I find that argument absurd and not supported by facts.

So you're aware of the argument, and just take it as false while pretending to be providing actual legal information about the case to someone unfamiliar with Supreme Court precedent?

Classy.

Once again, the post you reply to is not, and does not pretend to be an analysis.

I'm terribly sorry that I mistook an answer to the question of "OK, so can someone explain to me how federalism in this way works" as being something other than an attempt at explaining how the law works in this instance.

My bad.

Also, where you write "Since the plaintiff's interpretation forces the law into a constitutional issue, then their interpretation should be discounted as long as an alternative reading exists" it is certainly not prefaced by merely being your opinion. Hence the confusion.