Start around page 27 in Hudson's
ruling, and note his question quoted in the
article linked to the original one.
Judge Hudson appeared skeptical of the administration's argument that the fee for not carrying insurance amounts to a tax. He said President Barack Obama vehemently denied it was a tax while Democrats were securing votes to pass the legislation. "Was he trying to deceive the people?" the judge asked.
He quoted Drexel v Bailey and also the Linder case and others as establishing that:
"the law is that Congress can tax under its taxing power that which it can't regulate, but it can't regulate through taxation that which it cannot otherwise regulate."
Judge Vinson said:
Congress's conspicuous decision to not use the term "tax" in the Act when referring to the exaction (as it had done in at least three earlier incarnations of the legislation) is significant. "'Few principles of statutory construction are more compelling than the proposition that Congress does not intend sub silentio to enact statutory language that it has earlier discarded in favor of other language.'""Was he trying to deceive the people?" the judge asked.A rhetorical, political, unprovable and legally meaningless question.
He quoted Drexel v Bailey and also the Linder case
No, his memorandum cited Cuccinelli paraphasing Drexel v Bailey and Linder. He then cited Sebelius in reply directly quoting States v. Sanchez 340 U.S. 42 (1950) where it stated that it "is beyond serious question that a tax does not cease to be valid merely because it regulates, discourages, or even definitely deters the activities taxed."