You have one problem with your argument. It might have been ok before the judgement, but today, it is a tax.
There is no valid argument to the contrary
It is a tax and the law of the land........ period
They're not. Call them on it. Declare this thing unconstitutional and then see their reactions.
The court said the mandate wasn't valid under the Anti-injunction Act as such.
The court said the mandate wasn't valid under the Commerce Clause either.
Those two rulings make it very clear it must be a tax in order to be Constitutional.
You also see in the ruling where the government changed positions and basically said, ‘fine...it is a tax.’ And argued that it was a tax. Now the regime is standing by post ruling saying it is NOT a tax.
There is the other saying too...when your enemy is falling on his sword...don't stop him.
The intent of the law before the ruling was it was not a tax under the two provisos. The court struck that idea down.
The intent of the law was not to lay it as tax, but the court said it looks like duck, quacks like duck...then it must be a duck.
Post ruling they are still crowing it is not a tax...?
Then logically, they cannot implement it and the government committed perjury in the Supreme Court in an attempt to argue the law as a tax.
The law of land you say. And when a law favors some to the exclusion of others, is it still a law? When some are prosecuted while others escape, is it still a law?
Here are three charges against the King contained in the Declaration of Independence:
He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.
He has obstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary Powers.
He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:
For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:
For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:
Sound like anyone we know? What was true then is still true. I REFUSE to accept this as law. It is a bureaucratic mess designed to rob us of our freedoms - AT BEST. At worst, it is a cold and calculated way to install a tyrant.
Dems claim they didn't pass a tax, let them vote on it and make it clear it's not a tax, or make it clear it is a tax.