"I absolutely reject that notion"
Referring to Obamacare as a tax. Really, not a tax? Then why did your lawyers argue that it is to the SCOTUS?
The entire election just became out the Obamacare tax on the middle class and border control. It majorly benefits the GOP. Romney's campaign message is perhaps the clearest in American history.
In 2002, about 71 percent of the working poor were white.
However, the proportions classified as working poor for
blacks (10.5 percent) and Hispanics or Latinos (10.4 percent)
continued to be about twice those of whites (4.5 percent)
and Asians (4.6 percent).
on page 43 of the ruling, the Court specifies the difference in the Government's powers of 'punishment' between the Commerce Clause (or the necessary & Proper Clause) and taxation.
Under the first two, which they deemed the individual mandate does NOT fall under, the court can push its full weight, i.e. fines, imprisonment, deportation, etc.
Under the ability to tax: They only have the power to tax.
But what this law effectively does is give us three choices: 1) Buy Health Insurance 2) Pay a fine or 3) go to jail. Which cannot be a punishment for not buying the individual mandate.
My initial argument when I vetted my own idea in my head was: they imprisonment is for not paying the fine. Not for not buying insurance. But just as the wording of the law calling the 'tax' a 'penalty' is just semantics, I claim this is just semantics. You are going to jail because you're not paying a fine... because you're not buying health insurance. Which they cannot force you to do! They can only encourage you via a tax.
I also understand that this is a slippery slope to an argument that no taxation can then be enforced. My response: Exactly.
Eat me, drink me, love me;
Laura make much of me