“In other words any law can be written by calling it something it isn’t ?”
Huh? I don’t know where you got that from what I said. The court rules on the law as it is written, not on what someone else says it is, that’s all.
For example, I can say that the Treasury printing money excessively is effectively a tax, since they are devaluing our currency. However, the law that authorizes them to print money doesn’t all of the sudden fall under the taxation powers just because I have made that argument. If I were to challenge the law that allows the Treasury to do that in court, the court should rule on the letter of the law, not on my implications as to the effect of the law.