If they argue that it is a tax, don't they then have to get around Article I Section 9 Clause 1 "but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States?"
How do they argue that this federal "tax" is "uniform" when the Nebraska "Cornhusker Kickback," the Florida medicare exemptions, and all the union waivers, make favored constituencies exempt from it?
-PJ
“Greta says DOJ will fight it by calling it a tax... Legislators didn’t want to call it a tax for political reasons... But DOJ lawyers call it a tax in defending it...”
How can it be a tax when in 2018, high cost health care plans will be taxed at 40%. Can you tax a tax?
Also, if it is a tax, how can some favored groups claim an opt out on a religious exemption?
It also does not meets the requirements for uniformity because it was not created as an income tax and the law actually states that it is not a tax.
Also Greta said that since the tax will not be imposed for several years and no one has actually paid any healthcare mandated alleged tax then there would be no qualified plaintiff with standing until tax was paid. So the tax desperation move by the DOJ was rejected by this judge.
Also, I think Greta said that although there was no injunction, this ruling was actually a de facto injunction. No injunction was needed because the imposition of the unconstitutional mandate was not imminent (judges must consider this).
Also, Greta said the judge's ruling _only_ applies to VA and that VA escapes from Obamacare in this particular case partly because they only brought it on their own behalf and because they had a particular VA law making mandates to purchase insurance illegal.
Things may have worked that way in Indonesia or Kenya, but not here.