Congress can set a condition under which the tax is triggered. Remember, there are no limitations on the power of Congress to tax. There never have been. The Constitution is wide open in that regard.
It can still be litigated under the HHS waiver routine. You can always find someone who is an approved minority who is denied a waiver and then sue under the Civil Rights Act.
In a law this huge, there are always multiple targets. The obvious ones are sent up first. Then we go looking for nitpicky details.
Direct taxes are a muddled area but if it is a tax on income, then it falls under the 16th and is exempt from apportionment. But it is still subject to other rules.
But, my friend, you're losing sight of the bigger picture. Think about the Sackett case and the EPA. The Sacketts bought some land and EPA came piling in with a bunch of demands and fines based on their *commerce clause regulatory authority*.
Just because you own some land does not mean they can regulate you. Think about "inactivity". You may be a landowner, but you are doing nothing with your land.
How can EPA come in and regulate your "inactivity" under this ruling? The Sacketts had yet to break ground. There was no "activity" for them to regulate.
Put bluntly, regulatory authority has been restricted to actual activity now. Mandates under the Commerce Clause are now Unconstitutional.
Sure, Congress can tax you, but they have to pass a tax bill and that runs through the IRS, not the EPA.
As I said before, this is huge. Its just that people aren't realizing the ramifications of it yet.
You can bet some crafty attorneys are busy sharpening their teeth. This is a litigation gold mine.
If that is so, why did they have to pass the 16th amendment.
And as far as lawyers contemplating appeals, thats what happens when you get a decision where the court has to twist itself into a pretzel to come to a conclusion.