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?