“It is not our job to protect the people from the consequences of their political choices,”
I have to agree with Roberts. The constitution doesn’t permit or forbid such a tax - the author tends to leave out the obvious.
If the interpretation is a tax, the congress can obviously enforce it and regulate it. If the people vote for clowns that will increase taxes to pay for a huge government programs - guess what: we get what they ask for.
Lots and lots Republicans choose to sit it out at the last election and didn’t care about the Obama discrepancies in his background. It is those folks that get the credit for the mess we’ve had to endure, along with the folks that voted Obama. Don’t blame Roberts.... particularly when he tells it the way it is.
Actually, the Constitution expressly forbids a tax of the type Roberts proclaimed - a tax on NOT doing something, in this case, not having an insurance contract the government likes.
The government is permitted under the Constitution to impose an excise tax - a tax on a transaction or action.
But Roberts' tax is a tax on NOT doing something. That is simply a direct tax on people, which is not allowed to be imposed except when allocated among the states based on population.
The Framers recognized how dangerous a direct tax is, that Congress could impose it on groups of people who did nothing but were members of a group Congress didn't like - for example, people who don't carry health insurance.