If you feel the need to resort to such hyperbolic examples to make your point, then you should really reevaluate whether or not you actually have a point worth making.
That's an odd example because somewhere around half the U.S. feels like the ACA was jammed through without a supermajority of popular approval.
Also, there are many who think mandating the purchase of a product (health insurance) is unconstitutional. The Supreme Court ruled that they could squint at the law and call it a tax, but the bill was never passed as a 'health insurance tax', which goes back to popular approval.
Anyway, maybe civil rights reforms, the direct election of senators, or lowering the voting age would be better examples.
I was talking about popular support. It didn't have 60% approval of the voting public. In fact, that wouldn't have even been possible because it was a monster of a bill they were trying to cram through. It was so haphazard that some Supreme Court decisions were about what to do when the bill itself doesn't make sense.
And you mischaracterized the Supreme Court decision. The legal precedent was that an individual tax on not having healthcare is legal as long as it's not too onerous. That was a very odd decision because that tax was not the plan as presented to the American public. The whole process was convoluted, which brings its legitimacy into question.
Again, big decisions should have clear support from the American people. Deciding people can be taxed for nothing (not having healthcare) is a change in the rules of the game and should have required an amendment, IMO.