Replies

Roberts allowed it to be “presented” in a different manner than which it was passed.
A Judge can't change how a Respondent presents their argument. The Judge can only ask the Respondent to clarify their argument.

@Supreme Court: The Health Care Law And The Individual Mandate

GENERAL VERRILLI: I don't think that that's a fair characterization of the actions of Congress here, Justice Kagan. On the — December 23rd, a point of constitutional order was called to, in fact, with respect to this law. The floor sponsor, Senator Baucus, defended it as an exercise of the taxing power. In his response to the point of order, the Senate voted 60 to 39 on that proposition.

The legislative history is replete with members of Congress explaining that this law is constitutional as an exercise of the taxing power. It was attacked as a tax by its opponents. So I don't think this is a situation where you can say that Congress was avoiding any mention of the tax power.

It would be one thing if Congress explicitly disavowed an exercise of the tax power. But given that it hasn't done so, it seems to me that it's — not only is it fair to read this as an exercise of the tax power, but this Court has got an obligation to construe it as an exercise of the tax power, if it can be upheld on that basis.

Here's another reply of mine with link to an article with some more info showing that it was always a tax...It Was Always a Tax

The brief that administration lawyers filed on behalf of President Obama argued at length that the mandate is a tax.

Well, from what I have read of the first day’s oral arguments, it was argued as a penalty. When that wouldn’t fly, Roberts allowed a secondary argument presented as a tax. You are right, we were lied to by everyone. The good side is that now, even after Pelosi and Obama and others denying it was a tax, it can now be easier to overturn. But who knows what else is hidden in the document which is equal in size to several War and Peaces.