[publiusF27]

In 1925 in Linder v US, the Court said:

The declared object of the Narcotic Law is to provide revenue, and this Court has held that whatever additional moral end it may have in view must "be reached only through a revenue measure and within the limits of a revenue measure." United States v. Jin Fuey Moy, 241 U. S. 394, 241 U. S. 402. Congress cannot, under the pretext of executing delegated power, pass laws for the accomplishment of objects not intrusted to the federal government.

And when might they be doing that? The court seems to think that it's when a "tax" is a "penalty" and it doesn't even have to say "regulatory" in front of it.

In 1937, in Sonzinsky vs US, they said:

Petitioner does not deny that Congress may tax his business as a dealer in firearms. He insists that the present levy is not a true tax, but a penalty imposed for the purpose of suppressing traffic in a certain noxious type of firearms, the local regulation of which is reserved to the states because not granted to the national government. To establish its penal and prohibitive character, he relies on the amounts of the tax imposed by § 2 on dealers, manufacturers, and importers, and of the tax imposed by § 3 on each transfer of a "firearm," payable by the transferor. The cumulative effect on the distribution of a limited class of firearms of relatively small value by the successive imposition of different taxes, one on the business of the importer or manufacturer, another on that of the dealer, and a third on the transfer to a buyer, is said to be prohibitive in effect, and to disclose unmistakably the legislative purpose to regulate, rather than to tax.

The case is not one where the statute contains regulatory provisions related to a purported tax in such a way as has enabled this Court to say in other cases that the latter is a penalty resorted to as a means of enforcing the regulations.

Meaning they are giving the "penalty" a pass because it's a tax, not a penalty.

In 1950 in US v Sanchez, they said:

In their motion to dismiss, which was granted without opinion, defendants attacked the constitutionality of this subsection on the ground that it levied a penalty, not a tax. The validity of this levy is the issue here.

...

Hence, the attack here rests on the regulatory character and prohibitive burden of the section, as well as the penal nature of the imposition. But, despite the regulatory effect and the close resemblance to a penalty, it does not follow that the levy is invalid.

Again, upheld because it closely resembles a penalty, but is not one.

[Mojave]

The declared object of the Narcotic Law is to provide revenue

Was the declared object of Social Security or the Healthcare law to provide revenue?

Congress cannot, under the pretext of executing delegated power, pass laws for the accomplishment of objects not intrusted to the federal government.

Social Security, general welfare, Helvering, Flemming. The 800 pound gorilla in the room seems to be invisible to you.

"He insists that the present levy is not a true tax, but a penalty imposed for the purpose of suppressing traffic in a certain noxious type of firearms..."

"He" lost the case.

Meaning they are giving the "penalty" a pass because it's a tax, not a penalty.

That's not what they said. Here's what they said:

First. 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. Sonzinsky v. United States, 300 U.S. 506, 513 -514 (1937). The principle applies even though the revenue obtained is obviously negligible, Sonzinsky v. United States, supra, or the revenue purpose of the tax may be secondary, Hampton & Co. v. United States, 276 U.S. 394 (1928). Nor does a tax statute necessarily fall because it touches on activities which Congress might not otherwise regulate. As was pointed out in Magnano Co. v. Hamilton, 292 U.S. 40, 47 (1934): [340 U.S. 42, 45]

Social Security, individual mandate, general welfare and tax, flexible language interpretation. Is none of that going to be addressed? Did I just waste my time responding to you?