“If Congress can pass a law taxing you on lack of activity we have for the first time legalized a direct capital tax.”
BAM! Exactly. Except most people have never heard of a head tax, and have no idea they’re illegal. Roberts probably doesn’t even know the difference between unconstitutional direct taxes and ever other kind of tax. That’s because he and other judges live in the world of precedent and the post-New Deal Constitution, and have never bothered to read for its own sake the actual Constitution.
They’ve no doubt never heard of the idea of taxes only being justified if they’re raised to carry out enumerated powers. I’m not sure they’ve heard of enumerated powers. What they probably do know is that they’ve made Congressional power limitless. And that’s okay, because Congress is a “political” branch and elections decide what happens there. Because we’re an absolutist centralized democracy, don’t you know, and federalism, checks and balances, etc. are retrogressive notions that only hold women, children, and minorities back.
Technically, they're legal, but only if apportioned.
Roberts probably doesn’t even know the difference between unconstitutional direct taxes and ever other kind of tax. That’s because he and other judges live in the world of precedent and the post-New Deal Constitution, and have never bothered to read for its own sake the actual Constitution.
Roberts' opinion does discuss all of the case law (there isn't much of it) about what is a "direct tax," including Hylton v. United States (1796), and concludes that this isn't a "direct" tax.