It is standard for the courts to interpret a law in a way that sees it as constitutional, if they can.
Obamacare was indeed a tax.
BS. But then if it was a “Tax” then it was unconstitutional because the bill originated in the Senate.
Don’t defend Roberts here. He is compromised and everyone here knows it. Except maybe you.
It is standard for imbeciles to conceal their ignorance with gibberish, if they can, which you didn't.
To think that those such as you are determining the outcome of elections.
May God help us.
And yet the law asserted it wasn’t. If the law as written contradicts the only way for it to be constitutional, then the law is by definition unconstitutional.